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