> so if it isn't code, and it isn't used to generate > code, or doesn't affect the build and run-time of a > program, then it ain't software. OK, now define code. Let's try an example. PostScript is a programming language. It is Turing-complete (w/ the exception of finite resources in practicable implementations, of course). I think it is safe to say then that something written in PostScript is code. In fact, when you print or display PostScript, you're running that code. So, let's say I download a novel. I assume you don't call this software. However, by selecting "Print", it suddenly becomes software. Why should one of those be subject to the DFSG while the other is not? > > that should be simple enough.. Mwahahahaha! > > i agree wholeheartedly with the above definition. we (the debian > developers) need to discuss what software is before removing anything > already included. This has been done in depth many times before, and, apparently, will be done again. Check the mailing list archives. > you can't change the DFSG without a vote. we need to decide if > software is the source code + documentation, or if it includes > everything that we distribute. Well, if you want to take the line that documentation is not software, and thus is not subject to the DFSG, fine. But then please use the same strictness and same definition when reading clause one of the Social Contract. I trust you support removing all documentation, free or otherwise, from Debian.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part