Re: non-free and users?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:56:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Debian have good guidelines for programs. They are partially applicable
> >>for documentaion and for programs they work very good. Anyway it is
> >>a subject for another discussion.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > We are discussing what we want to do with those guidelines.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 01:46:09AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I'm not ready to say something new on GFDL. If Debian majority will
> decide it doesn't satisfy SC and DFSG, it will go to non-free. If Debian
> majority will decide to drop non-free, GFDL documentation will be droped
> together with it. My opinion is that DFSG and SC are not clear enough on
> this question and have to be changed before *any* decision is done.
Well, except I'm in the process of writing a proposal for the
consideration of that majority, so I need to talk about such issues even
if you're not ready to.
> > We're not talking about DFPG (Debian Free Program Guidelines). We are
> > talking about DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). And I think we
> > should be talking about software, rather than programs, for much the
> > same reasons that we can use code as data and data as code.
> You probably know, there is no stable definition of this word.
Which word? "Free" (that's what the DFSG is for), "Program" (yes,
I agree), "Software" (I don't see any relevant instabilities).
>From your next sentence, I'll assume "Software".
> I've checked several dictionaries and find out that some of them define
> software as program+data, some of them use program+data+docs, some of
> them insist on software == program. That's why I prefer not to use this
> word in this discussion. I think best thing with new SC will be to avoid
> it, or to define it clearly.
Software is all of what we distribute.
Otherwise, there would be no point to our free software guidelines.