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

Re: more evil firmwares found

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:37:13 -0500, Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> said: 

> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:15:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > the Csound code for the instruments, in order to not have a
>> > non-free dependency.
>> This has been explained.  :-)

> Where?

>> I'm not extending the definition; I'm using the old-fashioned
>> general definition.  The definition you're using here is synonymous
>> with "computer program", an older and unambiguous term.  The word
>> "software" was, I have been told, invented specifically to describe
>> not just that, but also all the other stuff on the computer which
>> wasn't hardware.  And it's a useful word, for which there is no
>> other word; it's stupid to use it as a synonym for "program".

> What is stupid is to refer to things that are not programs as
> programs.  If DFSG meant that the source code for "every single bit"
> in Debian needs to be made available, then it should have made that
> statement, rather than adopting the much more sensible approach of
> requiring source for each "program" to be made available.

	It did indeed mena that, as Bruce has already clarified.

> You're right.  So go with the former interpretation.  DFSG#2
> requires all programs to have source code available.  There is a
> typical and obvious division between a program and its supporting
> materials.  My claim is that only through a massive logical leap can
> we declare the supporting materials to fall under the definition of
> "program" as well.  This leap is what is required to remove a freely
> licensed albeit indeterminate binary-blob from Debian on a DFSG
> basis.

	The DFSG, in my opinion, shouyld apply to all software, as it
 was clearly meant to when it was discussed and written.

> Either way, DFSG#2 cannot be construed to apply to such things even
> in the strictest of readings.  Most of the Social Contract refers to
> "software", where DFSG#2 refers to "program".  Why the verbal
> distinction if there was not an intent for there ever to be a
> distinction in practice?

	I see we have to go through another GR to clean up the DFSG as

Having a baby isn't so bad.  If you're a female Emperor penguin in the
Antarctic.  She lays the egg, rolls it over to the father, then takes
off for warmer weather where she eats and eats and eats.  For two
months, the father stands stiff, without food, blind in the 24-hour
dark, balancing the egg on his feet.  After the little penguin is
hatched, the mother sees fit to come home. L.M. Boyd, "Austin
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: