On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand > how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like > that, with no luck. > > To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about > the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively > concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing > "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" (which are not > "software"). > > The social contract never read "Debian Will Remain 80% Free Software and > 20% Copyrighted Works Distributable In Digital Form (Which Are Not > Software)", nor "100% Of The Software In Debian Will Remain Free". As I > read the old SC, and I can see no other way, it would have had to instead > read something like one of my above examples for Mr. Towns' interpretation > to be logically possible. > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software", > right?
wrong. it means that the SOFTWARE in debian is ALL (i.e. 100%) free software as defined by the DFSG. it says nothing about the non-software in debian. > I'm entirely willing to be educated where I'm wrong. that would be nice. i suspect, though, that it'll be far easier to pretend that you can't understand a simple and obvious concept than it is to acknowledge another point of view. > I always assumed that there were no ambiguity, and that the Sarge RC > policy deliberately violated the social contract on a few select issues, nope. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
