On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 11:47:01PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > It is the closest thing to a functional definition of "source" that has > been proposed so far. If you disagree, please stop with the "we didn't > agree on that!" and actually state your objections to it. I find it > works well for a lot of varying types of data. My entire point is that there is no reason to require source for "data" that is not a program. And there is no DFSG basis on which it can be required. > > If decisions are to be made using that > > criterion as a basis, it has to be part of policy. > > You're claiming that all decisions must be based on explicit policy? In that case, maybe we should just come out and say that there is really nothing binding Debian developers to policy, and that they are free to make arbitrary decisions without accountability. If the policy is just a set of goals rather than a set of rules under which Debian development is conducted, perhaps that should be laid out more explicitly. > know of no official definition of "source" in any Debian policy, so you > appear to be claiming that Debian can't make decisions about DFSG#2 at > all. The source code is the editable form of a computer program in the syntax of the language it was developed in. Do you have a better one? > The deciding question should be "is it in the best interests of the project > and its users to require source for all software, or just programs?", and > not "which was the original intent?" I think the former isn't all that > interesting (though the basis for that intent might be). You mean the latter? Assuming so, the former question can be answered by a GR on the matter. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature