Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract

To: Debian Vote List <debian-vote@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
From: Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:19:26 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] FC4239E5-4661-11D8-A09C-00039317863E@suespammers.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040113132552.GA883@cliftonlabs.com>
References: <[🔎] 20040112083321.M23413@links.magenta.com> <[🔎] 20040113030340.GA24761@cloud.net.au> <[🔎] 20040113132552.GA883@cliftonlabs.com>

On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:

  5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, butdoes
documentation == software?

No, not all software is documentation. However, for Debian purposes,everything that is on the CD (ftp site, whatever) is software.

Reply to:

References:
- [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
  - From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
  - From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>
- Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
  - From: "Dale E Martin" <dmartin@cliftonlabs.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces, was: summary of software licenses in non-free
Next by Date: Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
Previous by thread: Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
Next by thread: Updated draft of social contract changes
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread