Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Jason Self]

bill-auger <address@hidden> wrote ..
> some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification

But hopefully not to the point of trying to document and cover all
possible cases. This is probably not possible. Even if it were if
evaluations were treated as a simple, automated, rote process where
someone worked from some sort of fixed recipe then things would
probably be missed. Meaning that having some vagueness is actually a
good thing rather than trying to spell out all possible things and
then missing things or not hitting the intended point. This leaves
things open to have a discussion on the mailing list, potentially with
different answers in different cases depending on the specifics of the
circumstances.

> FSF does not consider data (raw information) or art to be 
> "practical";

I'm not sure what you mean by "data (raw information)" but even if
something were to fall into that Non-functional Data part of the
definition, it must at least provide permission to copy and
redistribute, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. So it's
also not acceptable for it to be entirely proprietary either.

> it is not at all clear what this criteria covers

Things that are neither software nor documentation. Think fonts,
PostScript Printer Description files, data sets used by speech
recognition software to learn how to recognize words, hyphenation
patterns in dictionaries, etc. It's probably not possible to make an
exhaustive list of everything, which circles back to the point I made
at the beginning that it's best to evaluate things in light of the
specifics of a given case instead of trying to enumerate things.