Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Raul Miller writes:

> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 07:43:05PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > The details[1] of the proposal that passed are pretty clear: It
> > removes the word "software" from a number of places, replacing it with
> > "works," although it replaces "software" with "components" in the
> > first section.
> 
> There's more to grammar, and meaning, than word counts.  The social
> contract still specifically focuses on software freedom.
> 
> And if you're at all in doubt about the context in which those changes
> were made, here's a brief reminder: http://lwn.net/Articles/92396/
> [Summary: some people were saying that documentation and firmware files
> were not software, so different words were used to indicate that whether
> or not the files were considered software by everyone was not a crucial
> issue.]

I remember the context quite well: I was (and remain) opposed to the
amendment, for reasons related to those being discussed now.  The de
minimis change to resolve those editorial concerns would have been to
define "software" for the purposes of the SC rather than use words
that have much broader meanings.

Regardless of whether "works" and "components" mean the same as
"software," a computer's BIOS is a work, component and software.
Commercial IM and Microsoft Exchange servers are works and software
(and a component, but not clearly a component of the Debian system).
Packages in Debian clearly require those to function.  Why not move
those dependent packages into contrib?

Michael Poole