On 2003-10-07 06:30:20 +0100 Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than
documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an
absurd
notion).
I suggest you review some of the messages recently sent to
debian-legal, including the one where Bruce Perens clarified that the
DFSG were written to apply to everything in debian and the one where I
described where the meaning of "software" comes from. I am saddened
that you didn't seek clarification about this before now.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg01000.html
In any case, as Andrew pointed out, if you do not consider these
things software, they are easily shown to not be able to be part of
Debian without considering DFSG.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
PM 8+9 Oct: visit me @ AFFS on .ORG stand, at www.linuxexpo.org.uk
