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

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

This is probably my weekly restating of position.  Don't be surprised if
I don't contribute much to this thread any more.

Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org> wrote:
>     Oh, but it is artificial.  The common usage of software refers only

*Your* common usage.  To me, software are the bits in the computer that
aren't hardware...  I know the mess media can't tell the difference, but
they can't tell what a hacker is either.

>     I can only assume that it was easier for the people on debian-legal (at
> least) to stretch the definition of software to cover everything they wanted
> to be free than to get a vote to officially change the guidelines to reflect
> the expansion.

Not really.  There are some of us who consider all electronically stored
works as software, not just programs.  Also, there has not yet been
a robust definition of the two that doesn't allow things to skip from
software to documents and back again to evade exclusions of non-free
software.  Finally, if some electronically-held works are not software,
then should Debian distribute them?  Currently, the SC suggests not.

MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884

Reply to: