Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

> For a metafont generated font to be 100% free, both the compiler
> (metafont) must be free, and the font itself must be free.  The source
> code for the font is written in the language compiled by the compiler.

As it happens, the compiler is free.

But this is not in general true.  For example, it was possible to
write a free C program long before there was a free C compiler.  We
should not require the language-processor to be free before we regard
a program in that language as free.

But there might still be excellent reasons to keep such programs out
of the main archive.  In my opinion, the right way to do that would be
to put a Build-Depends on the language processor, and since the
language processor cannot be in main, the package itself cannot be
either.

So we don't really need to debate that case, since either way, the
package shouldn't be in Debian.

> Once again: it's meaningless to reject a definition if you're not
> going to provide a better one in its place.

Not true.  It is my position that we do not need to write or adopt a
definition at all.  I don't want you to change the status quo in this
regard; I don't want *any* definition to be adopted.  We already have
the term; it has a meaning; it has served us well.

If you want to replace it with "preferred form for making
modifications", you can use the GR process to make such a change.

I think we have a good practical definition of source code *already*.
I reject Ted's attempt to import one from a different place; I
explained why--mentioning the very different roles of licenses and the
DFSG.  We should leave things as they are.

I would say that if you want to adjust the status quo (which is to
rely on our already-existing common-sense understanding of "source
code"), then the burden is on you to justify your departure.

I am not obliged to propose a different departure just to object to
the departure you want to make.  I want to leave things as they are
(with respect to the definitino of "source code").

Thomas