Re: DFSG#10

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
>   This is what I don't follow.  I've been trying very hard to understand
>  how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like
>  that, with no luck.
> 
>   To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about
>  the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively
>  concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing
>  "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" (which are not
>  "software").
> 
>   The social contract never read "Debian Will Remain 80% Free Software and
>  20% Copyrighted Works Distributable In Digital Form (Which Are Not
>  Software)", nor "100% Of The Software In Debian Will Remain Free".  As I
>  read the old SC, and I can see no other way, it would have had to instead
>  read something like one of my above examples for Mr. Towns' interpretation
>  to be logically possible.
> 
>   For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
>  right?

wrong.

it means that the SOFTWARE in debian is ALL (i.e. 100%) free software as
defined by the DFSG.  it says nothing about the non-software in debian.



>   I'm entirely willing to be educated where I'm wrong.

that would be nice.  i suspect, though, that it'll be far easier to pretend
that you can't understand a simple and obvious concept than it is to
acknowledge another point of view.


>   I always assumed that there were no ambiguity, and that the Sarge RC
>  policy deliberately violated the social contract on a few select issues,

nope.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"