On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:06:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> I would argue that while the new Social Contract makes it
> unambiguously clear that the DFSG applies to non-programs (such as
> documentation, etc), both the old and new Social Contracts clearly
> apply to "software".
> While it has been disputed that non-programs such as documentation
> are
> software, firmware seems to be a program and therefore software, which
> is covered under both Socal Contracts.
The traditional distinction that I'm aware of is between hardware,
software and firmware: so someone will say that firmware is not
software.
Instead, I think that `firmware' *is* software and should be treated as
such, especially as long as it can be embedded in a software source
code.
That is, firmware is a particular kind of software:
(a) hardware
(b) software
(b.0) firmware
(b.1) system programs
(b.2) application programs
(b.3) documentation
(b.4) data
(b.?) ...
>
> > Current policy is that firmware types 1, 3, and 4 have to go. We
> > cannot change our policy such that 1 can stay; that is illegal. If
> > 3) and 4) are not copyright infringement (I and others believe they
> > are, Michael and others believe they are not, that is what this
> > debate is about), we*could* potentially suspend the SC/DFSG and
> > release with them. I think this is also a bad idea, but it's
> > feasible. If 3) and 4) are copyright infringement, then we must
> > remove them as well.
>
> Agreed. For what it's worth, I also believe that cases 3 and 4 are
> copyright infringement.
I agree too.
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
Attachment:
pgpyHRjwY8SkJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature