On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > 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... > If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing the point. The > point is that the Social Contract requires that all software in Debian > (that is, main) must comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > That was the interpretation debian-legal used before last year's GR, and > the GR, while editorial, simply made that clearer. > Therefore, if the DFSG said that "All ham sandwiches must include source > code...", then the Social Contract would still require that all > provisions of the DFSG apply to all of main. Yes, the DFSG must be applied to everything in main. How do you get from there to "the words 'ham sandwich' must be read as 'software'", exactly? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature