Re: LCC and blobs
Peter Van Eynde <email@example.com> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Peter Van Eynde <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is
>>>different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are
>>>stored on a disk?
>> The nature of the bytes do not change. But my name, distributed in a
>> Debian package, is software. My name, written in letters of granite
> You name is software!
> Now I'm a Common Lisp hacker, you know the data is code people, but
> even _we_ do not consider a string software unless it drives some
> Is your name input for a state-machine?
You should see what it does to TECO. My name is a killing word.
>> Architectural plans for a house, shipped in a Debian package, are
> I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I
> can convert a tar.gz into a debian package, so all tar files are
> software. With tar I can create a tar.gz from any file, so all
> electronic data is software?
Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote over
it. Then another debate and another vote. "software" is not
"program". Programs are software that happens to be executable. Data
is not executable, but still software.
> And you restrictions that any package that depends on non-DFSG
> "software" to work cannot be in main means that after releasing sarge
> we have to remove from main:
> - all bootloaders. Grub cannot start my XP without the XP
Grub doesn't depend on XP's bootsector. It provides other useful
functionality -- booting Linux -- without it. That's more of a Suggests.
> - tftpd. I want to netboot my Solaris machines. The tftpd needs the
> solaris code to "work".
It implements the tftpd protocol all by itself. There are even plenty
of tftp clients out there. Apache doesn't become non-free because you
want to use it to distribute your great novel... which you haven't
> Should I go on?
Please at least read Policy on what "Depends" means first. If you
also read the archives, you'll have a chance at understanding the
position of other debaters here, and of generating original
arguments. So far, this is all a repeat. It wasn't convincing any of
the last couple times, so it won't be this time.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com