Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

Manoj wrote:
> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> definition of the phrase computer program:  asking google about
> define: computer program gives:
> ,----
> |     * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
> |       used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring
> |       about a certain result. 
> |
> www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9710.html

But Debian has a tradition of ignoring the common definition of phrases.
Have you tried asking google to define software, for example?

I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
fibrechannel card, it's producing a distribution for my computer.
In order to make my fibrechannel card work, it has to poke some bits
in a documented way.  Even if there happens to be an ARM onboard that
card that's running a program, that ARM isn't running Debian.

I second Steve's proposal (although I can't be bothered to go to the
hassle of signing this message right now.  If it becomes important to do
so, I shall.)