On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:19:50PM -0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] international agreements and most countries worldwide > > make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is > > protected by law. > > Please substantiate this. UK law explicitly says that computer programs > are literary works with the exception that moral rights do not subsist.
You're saying it yourself. 'With the exception that...' If the moral rights do not apply to software, there is no reason to write a license in such a way that the moral rights are considered. As such, your license could end up differently as compared to when you're writing a license which would apply to a field of endeavour where the moral rights do apply. That's the reason for the FDL; you might disagree with the way it does, but the FDL does attempt to defend the moral rights of the author. Software copyright is based on 'normal' copyright by international agreements, but has some differences like the one you mention. IANAL either, sorry. > http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm#mdiv3 > Nothing is said about software in general. However, IANAIntlL and I > don't know if this is normal, or even repeated elsewhere, so I keep asking > for references. It is agreed upon by international agreements, at least if I remember correctly from school. > I don't think we have quoted equivalent references for > the opposite case and I can't see how there is any case for splitting > software into programs and documentation without it. Maybe someone did > and I missed it. (Memory of a goldfish, me. Feel free to remind me. > Memory of a goldfish, me.) > > I feel that we are being asked to say that "software means the same as > programs" more or less. That leaves a nasty taste. > > The discussion about what is free documentation is not really relevant > to Debian. That could be an outcome of my proposed GR as well. However, as the situation currently is, a lot of flames are going on (which don't do much good either) on a DFSG-issue for which we're not even collectively sure whether the DFSG applies. Note that I said 'collectively'; some might feel that the social contract does apply, others might disagree. Thus, as a group, we're not sure. > Debian cannot just contain the free documentation. It has > to contain an entire copyrighted work, which I think is part of Debian's > problem with the FDL. So, we have to try to come up with guidelines > for what we mean by free copyrighted work. Coo, the DFSG... The DFSG was written with software, not documentation, in mind. A lot of Debian Developers (those who have gone through the NM process) have agreed upon the DFSG with software, not documentation, in mind. While you, personally, may find that the DFSG can be taken and used for Documentation as well, you can't just do this with the single most important document in the Debian project behind the backs of everyone else. We have to agree on that as a group before we try anything else. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
pgpFrHlypQmoK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
