Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 08:25:52AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
> documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
> wonder if we need to go one step further. "Software and data that does
> not", or something else. If it's been agreed that everything that Debian
> distributes is software (I can live with that), please disregard.
It's my understanding that "Software" includes anything that can be
represented using bit patterns [on disk, in memory, on the network, ...]
However, if that's not clear to people, the proper place to address that
question would be in the DFSG. [S standes for "Software".] Because of
the recent constitutional amendment, splitting the DFSG from the Social
Contract, I'd just as soon leave the DFSG alone when working on the
Social Contract.
[Maybe that's wrong of me -- the primary focus of that consitutional
amendment was fixing the voting system. And, the older voting system,
which we used for the decision, was recongized as not being very stable
when presented with a large number of options. But I've not seen any
significant outcry about the DFSG/Social Contract split, either.]
--
Raul
Reply to: