Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is >>>different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are >>>stored on a disk? >> The nature of the bytes do not change. But my name, distributed in a >> Debian package, is software. My name, written in letters of granite > > You name is software! > Now I'm a Common Lisp hacker, you know the data is code people, but > even _we_ do not consider a string software unless it drives some > software. > > Is your name input for a state-machine?
You should see what it does to TECO. My name is a killing word. >> Architectural plans for a house, shipped in a Debian package, are >> software. > > I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I > can convert a tar.gz into a debian package, so all tar files are > software. With tar I can create a tar.gz from any file, so all > electronic data is software? Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote over it. Then another debate and another vote. "software" is not "program". Programs are software that happens to be executable. Data is not executable, but still software. > And you restrictions that any package that depends on non-DFSG > "software" to work cannot be in main means that after releasing sarge > we have to remove from main: > > - all bootloaders. Grub cannot start my XP without the XP > bootsector. Grub doesn't depend on XP's bootsector. It provides other useful functionality -- booting Linux -- without it. That's more of a Suggests. > - tftpd. I want to netboot my Solaris machines. The tftpd needs the > solaris code to "work". It implements the tftpd protocol all by itself. There are even plenty of tftp clients out there. Apache doesn't become non-free because you want to use it to distribute your great novel... which you haven't written yet. > Should I go on? Please at least read Policy on what "Depends" means first. If you also read the archives, you'll have a chance at understanding the position of other debaters here, and of generating original arguments. So far, this is all a repeat. It wasn't convincing any of the last couple times, so it won't be this time. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
