On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 12:52, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58:02 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not > > change the nature of the work, as free software. > > This point of view matches the policy of most non-Debian distributions > (for example Arch and Fedora), and I personally agree that the requirements > we put on executable code do not all make sense for non-executable data - > but my personal opinions do not set Debian's policy (except to the extent > that I get one vote in each general resolution).
I hope that the answer given to c.buhtz about a logo produced in SVG/Python would be enough to give sprint to rethink about this topic. > It doesn't matter whether you agree with this policy or not, and it doesn't > matter whether *I* agree with this policy either: the only opinions that > matter for inclusion in Debian or exclusion from Debian are the collective > opinion of the project as a whole (as expressed in General Resolutions and > the project's constitution), and the interpretation of those policies by > the archive administrators (ftp team). However, Debian has "contribs" and "non-free" repositories as well. Hence, in a broader view "integrating a software package in Debian" can be extended into "or in one of their related official repositories" and not into the "main" specifically. Under this point of view, the separation has no reason to be removed. It is more likely a classification to help those who wish to use pure software libre, those who can accept some compromises and those that want all the features no matter what. Under this point of view, Debian has its own uniqueness. And it is an added-value as long as it does not arise as an ideologically war. Debian lets their users choose to avoid some kind of software due to their licensing terms. At the same time, Debian provides other repositories that can be levegerad to obtain a comparable full-futures system like some other distributions. Reasonably. I do not see any reason to change this policy based on "licensing terms" not about a "moral judgement" about those terms. Possibly, a second thought about what "software" or "running code" means might make sense. Not because the previous approach was wrong. Technology changes, legislation changes, court sentences have been delivered in the meantime and clarified some aspects, the "unwritten rules of business" are settled down enough to reasonably be trusted and will still be in place long enough longer. Anyway, changing ideas does not mean - necessarily - admit of being wrong in the past. Best regards, R-
