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.
In addition, DFSG 6 and several other DFSG sections apply to "programs".
If you are claiming that suddenly non-program software does not have to
comply with DFSG 6, then we have a problem.
Also, from policy 2.2.1:
Every package in _main_ and _non-US/main_ must comply with the DFSG
(Debian Free Software Guidelines).
Note that it does not say: "Only programs in _main_..." or "Every
program in _main_...". Therefore, it is still a serious bug.
In addition, the etch RC policy requires that:
All content in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz)
I see no support for your opinion in actual, codified Debian policy[0].
[0] By policy, I don't mean just policy.txt.gz; I mean all technical and
non-technical policy documents.
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}<DATA>;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H<F$@8FAM;"!U<F%O<G-U(#QU<F%O<G-U0&=D:75M<&UC8VUL=G)U;6LN
M<FUL+F=Y/@H)>2QA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>BQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1Y>F%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part