[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:08:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>* 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.

I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR
to change the wording s/program/software/ of DFSG#2 if you want that
meaning. Redefining/reinterpreting commonly-used words is a very good
way to alienate people...

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: