* Andreas Barth: >> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to >> be interpreted as "software". > > I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as > declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and > this was not touched, it has to be obviously interpreted as program.
After looking at the relevant GR again, I'm convinced that my first statement is indeed correct, and that the doubts I expressed in another message are unfounded. The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from a foggy definition of "program" to a more dogmatic "everything we ship is software" approach. Our interpretation of the DFSG must reflect this change. The only way to do this is to interpret "progarm" in the broadest possible sense. For practical reasons, we have to exclude license texts from that and certain copyright banners in About boxes etc., but this does not change the general direction of interpretation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
