Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The Social contract uses the "that which is not hardware" definition of
> > software.
> >
> >The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
>
> I disagree about this interpretation, which suggests that your
> interpretation certainly isn't clear.
>
> > In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
> >
> >But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> >modified. These are not programs; are they software?
>
> Licenses are, for the most part, a legal necessity, in much the same way
> that Debian contains copyright statements that may not be removed.
> Essays and logos that cannot be modified are likely to be bugs - it is
> only recently that we have become aware of the extent and scale of the
> problem.
But is the upstream author of these *Bugs*. Does it means that Debian
have an implicit policy which is "making non-free software is ok
unless you distribute it"?
Easy.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: