On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:49:12PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> For anything not in the "distribution" (e.g. the web pages), I would
> agree. However, I _do_ think that the social contract is saying that
> anything in the "distribution" must be free software.
But what you're showing here is that your interpretation is
plausible. That was never the question.
What we have is another plausible interpretation which happens
to be different than yours for the prior social contract.
> > > > In other words, before the release of the new social contract, there was
> > > > ambiguity as to which definition of "software" was intended in the DFSG
> > > > -- the release manager picked the most typical definition, and this was
> > > > supported in his opinion by historical practice.
> > >
> > > It was disallowed by the old social contract. There was a clear
> > > consensus, and I'm not the only one saying that   .
> > "It"?
> The distinction.
Anthony Towns already addressed that point. We had some agreement on
the point, but not a consensus of debian developers.
- Re: DFSG#10
- From: Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com>