On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:48:12AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > Then maybe this is just a bunch of vapor. I don't think source code > clause is even a starter for images, and other data. DFSG state explicitly, > > The *program* must include source code, and must allow distribution > in source code as well as compiled form. > > where the definition of *program* is,
Are you also going to argue, then, that DFSG#7 and DFSG#8 only apply to programs? They use the word, too. If the DFSG really meant to distinguish between "programs" and "non-programs", then DFSG#7 would say "rights attached to programs", and not assume (by "the program") that the DFSG only applies to programs. 2004-003 made it clear that the DFSG is the guidelines for everything in Debian, and not just programs--that was a significant debate that it was trying to finish, and I think arguing about "program" is ignoring the outcome of that GR and continuing the old "software" argument in a new form. Let's stop playing rules lawyers[1], and figure out what we *should* be doing. If what we *should* be doing simply does not follow from the DFSG, then the solution is to fix the DFSG, not to do the wrong thing (or to ignore the DFSG). I don't claim to really know what we should be doing, here, but we're not going to figure that out by bickering about definitions. We aren't on a time limit; nobody is suggesting that we immediately throw out every image that we don't have source for, and nobody--I hope!--is even considering filing bugs. [1] rules lawyer (n): one who brings out dict(1) to argue an interpretation of the DFSG. :) -- Glenn Maynard
