Re: non-free firmware
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:23:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:05:04PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I think trying to declare firmware to be "not a program", in order to
> > permit it in main without including source, is contrived; if Debian wants
> > to allow firmware without source, it shouldn't use a faulty definition
> > of "program" to accomplish that.
> Technically it used the definition of "software" (as opposed to
> "firmware", "hardware" and "documentation") to do this; but in any case
> it does not do so anymore.
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form."
After finally closing that tired old argument of "the DFSG doesn't apply
to eg. documentation because it's not software", people promptly restarted it,
claiming that even though the DFSG applies to everything, non-programs don't
need to comply with DFSG#2, since it says "the program".
Claiming that DFSG#2 doesn't apply to non-programs is claiming that DFSG#6-9
don't, either. It's pretty obvious from its use that "the program" can only
be read as equivalent to "the software" (or "the work", or whatever).