> The bottom line for me is this: Debian's Social Contract focuses our > Project on software. The packaging of anything that is not, or is not > easily regarded as, software, is of peripheral interest to us as a > Project.
As I pointed out, I can very well understand that that might be a good way to go on this subject. In that case, there's lots of things that should be moved to non-free promptly. Besides, the license-text issue still needs to be resolved. (E.g. something like "Debian can distribute license texts" somewhere official.) And need I remind you that Debian's own logo doesn't pass the DFSG? To clarify w.r.t. software: I also speak Swedish, and in Swedish software used to be translated as "mjukvara", meaning literally "soft ware". This was defined as everything that wasn't hardware. Like, my screen is hardware but my background image or my letter to mom is software. This was confusing so they decided to drop the word "mjukvara" and went with "programvara" instead. Meaning "program ware", i.e. just programs. So my desktop background image is "mjukvara" but not "programvara". It's still to be decided if this make things less confusing or more. We'll see. Anyway, that's why I often get confused on "what is software", because I read "software" and think "programs" and go "Wait... the Debian logo is *not* a program..." while it in fact may be software.
