On 03 Jul 2003 23:45:56 -0500 Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Cameron Patrick wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you > > > | be sure and let us know. > > > How about "anything included in Debian"? That way we won't be in danger > > > of violating the Social Contract #1. > > > > Oh, cool. How about changing in DFSG to "Anything that can go in main or contrib." > > Because that's a circular definition. Saying everything in Debian is > software, is not. > > It's also the only reasonable way to define software. Or at least, the > only reasonable way I (or anyone else who has voiced their opinion on > this issue here) have come up with in 3 years, and it's not for a lack > of trying. The assumption in his suggestion was that it would no longer be the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", but the "Debian Free main/contrib Guidelines". ie: if it's going to go into main or contrib, it needs to meet the guidelines. Except for the title, the DFSG is very content-agnostic. It can be applied equally well to software, fiction, nonfiction, images, what have you.
Description: PGP signature