[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: more evil firmwares found

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:47:58 -0500, Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> said: 

> My entire article consisted of rebutting the
> idea that all materials in Debian are programs, and thus must
> necessarily meet the conditions of DFSG#2.

	Well, it is all software, and thus must meet the Debian Free
 SOFTWARE guideline. Which means that the source code, err, preferred
 form of modification of software, must be provided. 

> *That* idea is ridiculous.  They can only be defined as programs if
> you construct a theoretical machine that executes them.  Is this
> practical or even necessary according to the goals of the project?

	IMHO, this iust silly rules lawyeing. Even in D&D I hated those
 players. The idea is that I am given some bunch of software I find
 useful, I thould easily be able to modify it to better suit me, and
 to be able to share these mods with my friends.

	If this means modiying that wav to mix in "the flight of the
 Valkeries" as the background for the error warning message, I should
 be able to do. If there is a picture, I should be able to modify it
 -- again, the preferred form for modification is requiredd.

	Look, we don't want free software for the sake of free
 software -- the idea is to be able to modify, enhance, tailor the
 software, and reap the benefits of the diverity of variations that
 could emerge. 

> Someone else posted plenty of definitions of software that range
> from contradictory to parallel with that definition.  I don't think
> using a random dictionary definition is going to suffice for our
> purposes.  It is becoming clear that a precise definition of what is
> software and what is a program is necessary, if the Social Contract
> is to be upheld in an universally agreeable manner.

	No. The DFSG applies to everything that is in debian. Anyway,
 over on legal, I pointed out a situation where the same set of bits
 served as documentation, program input, and program instruction, in
 different parts of the system.  I believe that such a clean
 distinction is impossible anyway.

"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight."
attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: