On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Alex Romosan wrote: > Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For > > me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits. > > wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of > monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will eventually define all > that is software... the only problem is some bit streams are more > meaningful than others.
I'm not sure whether you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether it's a natural trait of yours, but I'll restate Mark's primary thesis as I understand it (and please, correct me if I'm wrong Mark): * Debian is about freedom. There are a set of guidelines which define freedom as Debian sees it. This is the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Expand the name a little, if you like, to the Debian Free What We Will Distribute Guidelines. * If a creative work, encoded as a stream of bits, is to be distributed with Debian, the licence for it's distribution must comply with the DFWWWDG, whether it is software, documentation, a painting, or an interpretive dance. * Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If it is not free as we define it, Debian will not distribute it. This is the basis of Mark's argument as I understand it. You've chosen to quote one little part of it, in the preamble, and attack that as though it were the basis of his argument. Bah, I say to thee. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <disclaimer.h> Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
