On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > > By program I mean everything that we formerly required to be distributed > > under the DFSG, > Huh? That's not a definition, especially since all this debate is about > whether our previous formal requirements where different to our current > ones.
The easy option is to pass the buck: "Which pieces of software fall into the category of program is a policy decision to be made by the appropriate delegates of the DPL, under the normal procedures of the constitution." (Obviously, if that option's taken, I'll just be delegating the decision of the moment to the tech ctte anyway; and the usual checks and balances of having things be able to be overridden by new delegates, by the tech ctte, or by GR still apply too of course. The question is how the definition of "program" can be changed or adapted to new scenarios -- only by 3:1 GR, by the delegates as part of doing their jobs, or some other way) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
