El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 18:41 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escribió: > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:20:42 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <jsogo@debian.org> said: > > > El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +0000, Brian M. Carlson escribió: > > [...] > >> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we > >> > have > >> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after > >> > Sarge's release? > >> > > >> > Here's the result I'm thinking of: > >> > > >> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 > >> > >> No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous > >> wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that > >> vote in consideration) states that "Debian Will Remain 100% Free > >> Software". debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please > >> correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian > >> distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is > >> not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to > >> be in the Debian distribution. > > > And documentation is not software. > > Say what? It sure as hell ain't hardware. And, between > software, hardware, and wetware, stuff shipped in Debian is > software. Ok, so the bible is software now (I don't know if the Coran is also shipped in Debian). And linux gazette issues are also. And if a book text is shipped within Debian, it is also software. And also it is any manual (not embedded in code). Then, the code in your CPU is also software. Please, hammer it as it is not DFSG free. Thanks -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente