On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > Florian Weimer wrote: > [...] > > >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... > > Yes, I think it's time to propose a GR to do a s/program/work/ in the DFSG. > Since IANADD, I cannot propose GRs, but I hope that some DDs will help. It's not quite that simple; you can't just change that bit alone. I'm working on something here. More on this later. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature