Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> You asked for DFSG compatibility, which doesn't tell us if it's a free
> documentation license. I still believe that the survey was very
> suggestive. It wasn't your intention, but simply the result of your
> belief that documentation is software, too.
In any event, I believe the recent GR clearly states that, for the
purposes of the Social Contract, documentation is software. (Otherwise,
the DFSG would simultaneously have been renamed to the "Debian Free Stuff
Guidelines".)
That's just my interpretation of the GR. It doesn't seem controversial to
me, since I don't believe that any interesting or convincing arguments
have been made that documentation is not software. I suspect we'll disagree
on this, of course. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: