On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >* Steve McIntyre: > >>>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. > >Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the >assumption under which debian-legal operates in general? With a few >practical exceptions, of course (license texts, public key >certificates, etc.), but the general rule seems to be followed. What? I'm astounded by your argument here. Go look in a dictionary, _please_. "Program" does not mean what you think it means. Re-defining a common word like this is not a good route for earning credibility. If you think DFSG#2 should cover all programs/software/images/works/whatever, then change it so that it _does_ say that. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com Google-bait: Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing lists asking us to send them to you.
Description: Digital signature