On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Andreas Barth: > > > Actually, the DFSG says: > > | 2. Source Code > > | > > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in > > | source code as well as compiled form. > > > > Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to > be interpreted as "software". No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend the DFSG and this still says "program", not "software", I don't see how you can claim it *has* to be read as "software". (And there are fewer instances of the word "software" in the DFSG after the revision than there were before, anyway...) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
