Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: >> Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in >> main, by insisting that it is not software > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
They aren't?
There are several definitions for the meaning of "software". One is
"not hardware", i.e. any pattern of bits, and another is "executable
programs". Personally, I subscribe to the "any pattern of bits"
definition, which is its original meaning, though the latter form has
come into common use.
Bottom line: the meaning of "software" is ambiguous.
> But I still consider documentation different than softwares, and
> don't see any major problem regarding the FDL.
I can see some differences myself, but the real questions are:
- how do we tell the difference between "software" and "documentation"?
(i.e. how can we define which is which in a clear-cut manner?)
- How does "documentation" differ from "software" by way of the
freedoms we require of it?
The first is not at all obvious. Most of our documentation is
actually in the form of programs, in either or both of the document
source and the final readable form. For the second, I remain to be
convinced that "documentation" is less deserving of freedom than
"software".
Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
pgpSdLtCOaaF8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
