> > > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > > > right?
> > > One issue here is that "Debian" is an adjective, and you have to dub
> > > in the noun. If that noun is "Software", you get a different meaning
> > > than if that noun is "Copyrighted Works". As it happens, the updated
> > > social contract uses the noun "System" -- a somewhat ambiguous noun,
> > > but to some degree that ambiguity is good because it lets us branch out
> > > into new things (new distributions for new architectures, most likely).
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:26:29AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Except that you are then ignoring the clarifying text in the Social
> > Contract, which states:
> > We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> > software. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That restricts the ambiguity but does not eliminate it.
This is degenerating into a "did not!" -- "did too!" argument. The
clarification makes it clear that the Debian distribution must be 100%
free software. It does not speak of Debian software or Debian
copyrighted works. I don't understand how you could interpret