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

Re: more evil firmwares found

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:01:55 -0500, Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> said: 

> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 03:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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.

> Where is that stated?  I see only DFSG#2, which uses a different
> term, a more specific one, besides "software".

	What else does one mean by "source code"?

>> 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.

> The "preferred form of modification" is not part of policy.  It is
> only a convention spurred by the GPL.  If decisions are to be made
> using that criterion as a basis, it has to be part of policy.  As
> for having the permission to modify it, we are not in disagreement.

	It is implicit when you call it the source for the software.

>> 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.

> I have already said that I don't disagree.  It is not as if I am
> challenging the principles of Debian.  I am challenging the idea
> that there is no distinction between program material (as in DFSG#2)
> and the more encompassing term software (as in the rest of the
> social contract).  Handwaving that distinction presents a
> significant challenge to certain users (obviously, myself included).

>> No. The DFSG applies to everything that is in debian.

> Ob duh.  The question is whether DFSG#2 applies to everything in
> Debian or not.  Besides a lot of personal opinions, nobody has shown
> me what is required to interpret the word "program" as being
> equivalent to "software", besides Herbert Xu's post, which pushes
> the borders of what is practical or intended.  But if everyone
> really wants to go that route...

	Well, read, for example,
 I know that talks about documentation (which may include pictures)
 and not just data, though there are examples where the
 data/documentation/program boundary is blurred.

There's nothing like good food, good wine, and a bad girl.
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: