On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:25:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Nor does it say "all derived works".
You're free to offer alternate interpretations, but showing that they're valid interpretations does not make them Debian's interpretation, which is the one that holds. :) > If people are going to nit pick about the meaning of the DFSG, why not > nit pick about the meanings of the words in the DFSG? You're the one nit picking, focusing on the word "program". :) Again, if we read "program" in the DFSG to mean anything but "software", it's suddenly making most of the DFSG apply only to programs, which is completely ignoring the results of the GR. I believe it is very clear, based on that GR, that Debian is to use the DFSG--not just the two clauses that don't use the word "program"--to judge freeness of all software. (You might assert that people voting for the change actually meant that all software should be judged under the DFSG, but only two clauses of the DFSG clearly apply to non-programs; but I reject that assertion, as you're one of the few that has ever even suggested it.) > At least some fonts have existence as a program (in some cases, the > underlying language is metafont, in other cases it's postscript, there are > many other such languages). Whether all do is a matter of interpretation. I think everyone participating in the discussion already knows this. -- Glenn Maynard
