On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:47:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Andreas Barth: > > > > > Actually, the DFSG says: > > > | 2. Source Code > > > | > > > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in > > > | source code as well as compiled form. > > > > > > Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main. > > > It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to > > be interpreted as "software". > > No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend > the DFSG and this still says "program", not "software", I don't see how you > can claim it *has* to be read as "software". (And there are fewer instances > of the word "software" in the DFSG after the revision than there were > before, anyway...) The DFSG was never amended. The text has not changed. This is purely because I didn't want to lump two complex revisions together, and it carries no implications about the intended meaning. The relevant change in 2004-03 was to eliminate all uses of the word "software" from the SC (except as part of the compound noun "free software"), on the basis that it had always meant "everything" but some people had difficulty understanding this and we got into pointless debates because of it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature