Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Andreas Barth:
>
>>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>>> be interpreted as "software".
>>
>> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
>> declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
>> this was not touched, it has to be obviously interpreted as program.
>
>After looking at the relevant GR again, I'm convinced that my first
>statement is indeed correct, and that the doubts I expressed in
>another message are unfounded.
>
>The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's
>clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from a
>foggy definition of "program" to a more dogmatic "everything we ship
>is software" approach. Our interpretation of the DFSG must reflect
>this change. The only way to do this is to interpret "progarm" in the
>broadest possible sense.
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...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Reply to: