Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just
doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...]
You said "DFSG is made with software in mind" and implied that
documentation is not a subset of software. Bruce has said that
documentation was amongst the software in mind when it was written.
Yet still people continue to claim otherwise. Do you have other data,
or are you irrational?
How does this match to docu? The words "source-code" does not really
fit. [...]
This has been covered elsewhere. Please try to add something new,
else just refer to the previous outing.
q.e.d.
Sorry, I am a mathematician and that didn't look anything like a
proof. You need to prove that none of the DFSG can be applied to
documentation, but have restated a known controversial minority
interpretation of just one.
[...] In my opinion it would be wrong to treat docu
in spite of the differences just as code.
Please define what documentation Debian distributes is not software,
using the normal English definition of software as previously
mentioned by Bruce Perens and others. If it is not software, it is
not in Debian...
Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Reply to: