Re: Defining free, and the DFSG's terminological shortcomings
Pierre Habouzit <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Yes, I believe the DFSG are clumsy when it comes to its terms. Component
> is clear. Firmwares are part of Debian components for sure, there is
> absolutely no doubt about that. But I'm honnestly not sure what
> "programs" or "software" mean, and in §2 that's the terms in use, and
> that's the sole § causing issues with them.
> We have had quite a few rounds of GRs to say that documentations,
> images, documentation, fonts... are softwares, we could continue such
> rounds, or make the DFSG clearer. I would be more on the latter side.
I think it's fairly clear that the project is split on this.
Of the two clear votes that we had on this, the first, which would have
unambiguously declared firmware to be software for the purposes of DFSG
and the second, to amend the DFSG to exclude firmware from the source
requirements of the DFSG, garnered more than a majority but failed due to
3:1 majority requirements:
(I don't consider the editorial amendment and subsequent sarge vote to be
sufficiently clear to really serve as proof of the project's position on
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>