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

Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Alex Romosan wrote:

> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> > Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
> > me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
> wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
> monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will eventually define all
> that is software... the only problem is some bit streams are more
> meaningful than others.

I'm not sure whether you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether it's a
natural trait of yours, but I'll restate Mark's primary thesis as I
understand it (and please, correct me if I'm wrong Mark):

* Debian is about freedom.  There are a set of guidelines which define
freedom as Debian sees it.  This is the Debian Free Software Guidelines. 
Expand the name a little, if you like, to the Debian Free What We Will
Distribute Guidelines.

* If a creative work, encoded as a stream of bits, is to be distributed with
Debian, the licence for it's distribution must comply with the DFWWWDG,
whether it is software, documentation, a painting, or an interpretive dance.

* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue.  If it
is not free as we define it, Debian will not distribute it.

This is the basis of Mark's argument as I understand it.  You've chosen to
quote one little part of it, in the preamble, and attack that as though it
were the basis of his argument.  Bah, I say to thee.

#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence

Reply to: