Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > [SC 1] 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. > > In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their ยง2. The DFSG use a mix > of "component", "software", "program" words, which makes them a mess in > that regard.
Quite right! We need some editorial changes to fix this(!) Except we already tried that, with the social contract, not long before madcoder joined. Surely no-one joining in 2005 could be ignorant of what SC 1 applies to, given all the noise in 2004? Actually, the DFSG don't use "component", "software" or "program" but some of the explanations/illustrations do. I think the DFSG could be written exactly, maybe using some system of formal symbols, and there would *still* be disagreements about the meaning. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, sadly. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
