Defining free, and the DFSG's terminological shortcomings (was: call for seconds: on firmware)
Pierre Habouzit <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +0000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit <email@example.com> writes:
> > > The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
> > The statement that Manoj refers to, [SC §1], does *not* speak
> > about software. […]
> > There is no need to define “software” for this promise to be
> > understood. It explicitly promises that “the Debian system and
> > all its components will be free”.
> This bit doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
> within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to
> meet the DFSG.
Okay. So, at least, we agree that the promise that Debian will remain
100% free does not depend on the term “software”.
> In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a
> mix of "component", "software", "program" words, which makes them a
> mess in that regard.
That seems to be an argument for proposing a re-wording of the DFSG,
so that freedoms are defined without referring to that mess of terms.
I would agree that could be a good motivation in principle.
\ “Human reason is snatching everything to itself, leaving |
`\ nothing for faith.” —Saint Bernard, 1090–1153 |