Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
* Andreas Barth:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
> declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
> this was not touched, it has to be obviously interpreted as program.
After looking at the relevant GR again, I'm convinced that my first
statement is indeed correct, and that the doubts I expressed in
another message are unfounded.
The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's
clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from a
foggy definition of "program" to a more dogmatic "everything we ship
is software" approach. Our interpretation of the DFSG must reflect
this change. The only way to do this is to interpret "progarm" in the
broadest possible sense.
For practical reasons, we have to exclude license texts from that and
certain copyright banners in About boxes etc., but this does not
change the general direction of interpretation.