Mathieu On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Steve Dobson <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté : > > 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. But an operating system is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "the lowest level software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks and controlling peripherals". Now the Debian System contains more than just low level system software like Apache, TeX, and XFree86. While these packages are important there are not necessary. There for the Debian System is more than an OS. > > 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. Agreed. > I do not see any urgent freedom to protect here, > apart the freedom to redistribute a document. Maybe you do not, but others, in different circumstances, may. > 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. I do not claim that both are similar. What I, and others in Debian judging from this list, are saying is that to restrict documentation is this way does not make it 100% free. Being "100% free" is a requirement of the Debian Social Contract #4. Steve -- You will wish you hadn't.
Description: PGP signature