MJ Ray wrote: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various > > people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly > > loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items. > > If FDL-covered works are not software, than doesn't the SC mean that they > should not be in Debian?
BZZT. That is exactly the argument John just asked us not to make. > Can someone please offer more evidence for this assertion that we cannot > treat software and other works alike? I can only find evidence for the > contrary view (eg computer programs are specifically classed as literary > works in the current UK copyright law). > > Really, I'd like a clear demonstration of how they differ in such a > fundamental way as to make attempts to have a unified decision system > invalid. The best that has been given so far is the opinion that some > writing should be classed as an expression of opinion and not modified > to express other opinions. That's fine as an opinion, but some people > think software should not be modified to aid (say) racist groups. So's this. And it's been said a hundred times before, so why repeat it again and waste all of our time? -- see shy jo
pgpCR0X8UMQLI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
