Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +0000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it. > > > > The statement that Manoj refers to, [SC §1], does *not* speak > > about software. […] > > There is no need to define “software” for this promise to be > > understood. It explicitly promises that “the Debian system and > > all its components will be free”. > > This bit doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist > within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to > meet the DFSG.
Okay. So, at least, we agree that the promise that Debian will remain 100% free does not depend on the term “software”. > In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a > mix of "component", "software", "program" words, which makes them a > mess in that regard. That seems to be an argument for proposing a re-wording of the DFSG, so that freedoms are defined without referring to that mess of terms. I would agree that could be a good motivation in principle. -- \ “Human reason is snatching everything to itself, leaving | `\ nothing for faith.” —Saint Bernard, 1090–1153 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
