Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
> that small, nonfunctional invariant bits are okay, but anything more
> isn't. And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable. Where's
> the rough consensus?
In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of
"software".
Search for "bright line" in the thread, and maybe you'll see what I
mean.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: