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

Re: Unidentified subject!

Steve Dobson <steve.dobson@krasnegar.demon.co.uk> a tapoté :

> Mathieu
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :
> > 
> > And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> > you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
> > Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
> The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other
> works that provide a useful platform for our users.  The Operating 
> System is just part of that work.

I see it as the result of that work.

> > So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
> > DFSG-compliant, software or not.
> > 
> > It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. 
> Yes, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where everything is
> free.

I agree. But I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay, by quoting eventually the
original one. And if I must quote almost all the original one, it
means that I have no so many things to add and I would just make a
commentary about it. I do not see any urgent freedom to protect here,
apart the freedom to redistribute a document.

Someone can grant anybody to modify his political essays, but I do not
think that not giving this right is similar than forbidding anybody to
access the code of a program, to modify it and redistribute it.

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: