On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield > |-------------------------------------- > 1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free > software |
> Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording difference. I don't think these are "pretty much the same thing". Not at all. Raul's version (which is the current version) says that Debian contains only free software. Andrew's version says that Debian contains only free stuff. The difference is in the non-software category. Raul's version, taken literally, says that Debian contains nothing else than software (else it wouldn't be 100% software, so surely not 100% free software). Which isn't true, has never been true, and thus could lead the reader to think that the original author of this sentence meant "100% of the software in Debian will free" or "All the software on Debian will be 100% free". Thus not saying anything about non-software. This is the crux of the disagreement between people saying "the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines apply as-is to documentation" and the people saying "documentation not software, different ethics, different rules". The first group feels the need to redefine the semantic of "software" because, according to the current foundation documents, Debian can't ship anything but software. We have to ship documentation, so we redefine documentation as software. And then, clearly, the DFSoftwareG apply, because it is software. The second group declares the literal meaning stupid and obviously not meant and tries to get what the authors meant. (All this is obviously my understanding and my analysis of the situation.) -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
