Glenn Maynard writes: >> That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom >> that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free >> Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Reference >> Documentation or Free Speech. > > It does not help to pretend that Free Software is not the same thing as > Free License Texts or Free Reference Documentation or Free Speech. > > Not very convincing, is it? :)
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store, you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for TCP/IP in the software section, and you are not likely to find a print of Starry Night in the software section either. I argued against that example earlier by pointing out that convenience or happenstance can lead to inaccurate labelling. The argument also fails because sometimes people draw a distinction that he did not. Having said that, though, I will not argue further over the definition of software. You will not change my mind, and I doubt I will change yours. I also do not think it is so important: As long as the DFSG refers to packaged/distributed data in general, whether certain bits are software or not is a moot question. [snip] > I've seen several people, particularly on debian-legal, suggest that > documentation should have different standards of freedom than programs, > requests for a "DFDG", and so on. (If I remember correctly, RMS was > among them.) I've yet to see any interesting arguments in favor of this. > > If you have one, I'd like to hear it. Not documentation, but similar: I agree that important parts of packages need the same freedoms that Debian enumerates in the DFSG; although knowing computer people, if that were the standard, there would be many arguments/flame wars over what is "important." If freedoms should apply equally to all parts, though, we should file a bug against the desktop-base package regarding a non-free file in it. Specifically, /usr/share/pixmaps/debian-official-logo-small.png. Debian significantly restricts use (not just modification or redistribution) of what is in that file. There is no question that the rules for the official use logo fail the DFSG. The only way I can see for Debian to follow its SC is to not include its own official use logo. Silly? I think so, but I am trying to apply your argument to a place you might not have thought of. Michael
