Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
* Steve McIntyre:
> Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
> "software" means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of "program"
> too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
> "program" are unclear and should say "software", then propose a GR to
> get them changed. We ship lots of things that are NOT programs...
Exactly, and we still require that these things are properly licensed
under some DFSG-free license.
The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
real problem here (beyond the invariant section business) -- the GNU
FDL requires open formats.