Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:06:01AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Many of us believe that any string of bits is software, and that the text
> > of the GPL is software, and so the old SC applied to the GPL text equally
> > to the new one--but nobody was silly enough to try to enforce that.
> Then where do you get off trying to enforce the DFSG against firmware
> blobs but not against license texts, which are used by an enormously
> greater number of users than any firmware blob?
"Then where do you get off trying to enforce the DFSG against Netscape but
not against license texts, which are used by an enormously greater number
of users than Netscape?"
That's not convincing, either.
> Calling something
> "silly" does not excuse it as a violation of the DFSG.
Feel free to do something about it, then, such as by proposing a GR to
explicitly allow them, or by trying to convince the ftpmasters that the text
of the GPL (and therefore all GPL software) must be removed from the archive.
The fact that non-free license texts are allowed in main does not imply
that every other bit of non-free software must be allowed in, too.