Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    > The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.

    I encourage you to look closer. The only part of the social contract 
    which even contains the word programs is #5, a part both of us would 
    like removed.

Several parts of the DFSG contain the word "program".  For instance,

   <LI><P><strong>Source Code</strong>
     <P>The program must include source code, and must allow
     distribution in source code as well as compiled
     form.</P>

   <LI><P><strong>No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor</strong>
     <P>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
     program in a specific field of endeavor.

   <LI><P><strong>Distribution of License</strong>
     <P>The rights attached to the program

Each of these assumes that the software in question is a program.  To
make that even clearer, one of them also assumes that the availability
of source code for it is an important issue.

    That is most unfortunate, but Social Contract 1 says we have to apply 
    those guidelines to everything in Debian.

If you interpret item 1 of the social contract as meaning that
everything in Debian is considered software, then you run smack into
the fact that the DFSG equates software with programs.  So you have to
ignore what those words say, too.

Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
things that are included in the Debian package files are not "part of
Debian" for this purpose.  That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG
to them.