On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]: > > (CC's trimmed.) > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to > > > > be interpreted as "software". > > > > > > I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as > > > declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and > > > this was not touched, it has to be obviously interpreted as program. > > > If you really want to deal in unconvincing semantic arguments, consider > > that the clause says "the program", which indicates that it's assuming > > the whole of the DFSG is only being applied to "programs". Since > > GR2004-003 established that the DFSG applies to everything in Debian, > > "program" can only consistently be interpreted here as "everything in > > Debian". > > Why didn't the GR then change the wording to program?
Because this word is in the DFSG, not the SC. Please stop making up ridiculous interpretations. 2004-03 was modifying the SC. It did not modify the DFSG. That's all there is to see here. And before anybody starts making up more daft ideas about why the DFSG wasn't changed, it was for one reason and one reason alone: Updating the SC took quite enough of my time, I didn't want to do the DFSG as well right then. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
