Fedor Zuev wrote:
KD>Your definition seems to differ from standard usage.
What is the standard usage?
I can't exactly define a "standard" usage, but in my experience most people
would consider all binary executables as "software". What else is also
considered software is one of the subjects for this debate.
However, I believe the difference between "software" and "documentation" is a
bit of a red-herring. I have yet to see any convincing arguments why
"documentation" (however one wants to define the term) should be allowed to be
less free than any (other) software.
The arguments which I've heard basically boil down to:
1) The GNU manuals should be allowed into main, so we need to find some way to
allow a license which would be considered non-free if applied to a program to
be applied to the manuals.
-- This is putting the cart before the horse. There are guidelines, and we
should judge what is put into main by the guidelines, rather than judging the
guidelines by what we want to put into main.
Umm... havn't really heard any other arguments (although I'm sure I've missed
something important someone said). The mention about documentation being
allowed _more_ freedom under copyright law than software isn't a reason to
allow documentation into main which is licensed under a license which wouldn't
be allowed for software. If anything it's the reverse...
-- Keith
