Manoj Srivastava: > Amazing. Faced with a conundrum, you assume that that people saying > so must be dumb, and refuse to investigate further to see where the > fallacy lies.
*sigh* If you accuse me of calling people things, then try to at least back you claims. I haven't said anyone is dumb, I only said that if we consider *everything* in Debian as software (including the licenses for software included, and the names of people owning the software), then my conclusion is that we cannot distribute the programs at all, because the license text and copyright statements are not free for us to modify as we see fit. I'm sorry that my English eloquence doesn't stretch far enough to use cool words like "conundrum" and "fallacy", but that's just because I didn't know them, thankfully I had a dictionary at close hand when reading this mail. > Is it hardware, then? Or wetware? It's a picture. Even though software is also (at least sometimes) pieces of art, as are documentation, I think that trying apply exactly the same rules for accepting them isn't really useful. What, for example, would the preferred editing form of an icon included a program be? Or the images used in a game? Often, these are rendered versions of images created elsewhere, and the "source" files for them are not included. Does that make the game non-free? I'm sorry to see that you think I'm an idiot because I don't agree with you. Well, it's entirely up to you to think so. I don't think you, or anyone else, is an idiot for having other opinions on the matter. I merely think that the opinions are unfounded. If it came out any other way, I'm sorry. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
