On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 01:40, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu> a tapoté : > > > On 2003-09-14, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote: > > > Perhaps people who aren't native English speakers have learned the > > > wrong definitions? > > [...] > > > b) Bruce Perens, the principle author of the DFSG, has clarified that > > it was intended to apply to everything on a Debian CD. > > > > So I think it's clear which definition is controlling here. > > No, it makes thing less clear, in fact. > > - If everything that is on a Debian CD is software, it may > means that any text that can be included (for instance the > Bible) is software for Debian. Correct, sort of. Any text that *is* included is software. The paper Bible on my bookshelf is not software; the stream of bits in my hard drive (and Debian CDs), that various programs like less(1) can decode and display similarly to the Bible on my bookshelf, is software (Specifically, software for Debian. Any other definition of "software" is outside the scope of the current debate). > - But it may also means that the only content that can be on a > Debian CD must be software under the definition that I > copied from two dictionnaries in the mail I just sent. In > this case, Bruce statement would just mean that the Bible > cannot be included in Debian. Debian has its own definition of software, which is any digital information we ship. Bruce's statement about the DFSG's intent is very clear on this point, as is the majority interpretation of debian-legal. We can distribute the bible because it is software. It's also a religious text. Much like Emacs is a program *and* documentation (and software), the bible as distributed by Debian is software *and* a religious text. One object can belong to multiple sets. Propose other definitions (and associated guidelines) for "software", "documentation" and so on, on debian-project, not here. You will, however, get your definitions picked apart by people who are very good at picking apart definitions. So write them carefully. > The GNU GPL text is more clear, as it uses the word mostly the word > program, instead of software. In fact, each time that making the > distinction between software and program makes sense, this is program > which is picked. Actually, the GPL uses the word "Program", which is a term defined within the GPL, and not the word "program". A "Program" is defined in the first paragraph of the terms of the license: "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work..." Thus, anything I license under the GPL is by its definition, a Program. It just has to be any work that can be licensed under copyright law. This can be a program, but it can also be a not-program. > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> Indeed; you should read it thoroughly one of these days. It's an excellent example of the correct way to write a free *software* license, rather than a free program license, or "free" documentation license. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part