On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the software in main. > > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > > > require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is > > > simply false. > > That because we're violating the social contract. > *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't > think interpreting "software" to mean "programs, but not documentation" > is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing > non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has > been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that > "documentation is software too" is anything but a reinterpretation. A case can probably be made (if one has the patience to make it) that we have also been distributing non-free software in main since the beginning, by virtue of various bugs/oversights (including some as-yet undiscovered). So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of this. Instead, what we have is the original author of the DFSG stating he intended documentation to be covered by the DFSG, and various other people saying it was never really discussed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature