El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 22:44 +0000, Brian M. Carlson escribiÃ: > Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +0000, Brian M. Carlson escribiÃ: > > > > [...] > >> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have > >> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after > >> > Sarge's release? > >> > > >> > Here's the result I'm thinking of: > >> > > >> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 > >> > >> No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, > >> IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in > >> consideration) states that "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software". > >> debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I > >> am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist > >> completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not > >> free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. > > > > And documentation is not software. > > Have you heard of the Lisp HTML program? Which is it, documentation or > software?
If it is a program, it is software. > And while some documentation is not software, documentation is treated > as if it were software for the purposes of evaluating its freeness. Why? By whom? Which rule states that? The rights that are needed for software are not needed also for documentation, as those are different. Don't try to mix oranges and apples, please. Thanks, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
