On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough > > consensus. > > Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is > software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue > that small, nonfunctional invariant bits are okay, but anything more > isn't. And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian > should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable. Where's > the rough consensus?
In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of "software". Search for "bright line" in the thread, and maybe you'll see what I mean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]