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

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach



MJ Ray wrote:
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> > As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> > people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> > loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
> 
> If FDL-covered works are not software, than doesn't the SC mean that they
> should not be in Debian?

BZZT. That is exactly the argument John just asked us not to make.

> Can someone please offer more evidence for this assertion that we cannot
> treat software and other works alike?  I can only find evidence for the
> contrary view (eg computer programs are specifically classed as literary
> works in the current UK copyright law).
> 
> Really, I'd like a clear demonstration of how they differ in such a
> fundamental way as to make attempts to have a unified decision system
> invalid.  The best that has been given so far is the opinion that some
> writing should be classed as an expression of opinion and not modified
> to express other opinions.  That's fine as an opinion, but some people
> think software should not be modified to aid (say) racist groups.

So's this. And it's been said a hundred times before, so why repeat it
again and waste all of our time?

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: pgp2UOP8I48Xq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: