On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
See http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/about#what
Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
logo must be free software
Has Debian taken a decision on that? At least some developers think
that having a non-DFSG-free logo is a bug, for similar reasons as
those that mean having non-DFSG-free manuals is a bug.
Maybe because the software that must be included in a Free Software
Operating System is mostly programs and documentation...
No auxiliary data files at all? Also, FSF do not consider
documentation software.
So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
DFSG-compliant, software or not.
This makes it sound as if this is a sudden admission on my part. It
is not. I believe I have been fairly consistent on this point, even
from before I was aware of the FSF.
It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software.
It is not a broad definition of software, but a correct one. I
encourage GNU to research the origins of the word.
As a matter of fact, you are no longer discussing about an Operating
System.
This is hardly my fault. The previous article invited it. Maybe FDL
fans should keep more tightly to the problem under discussion, but
tangents are always occurring. If you feel we stray too far to be
relevant, take it off-list, as I frequently do.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
