Marcelo E. Magallon writes ("Re: Documentation as Software (was Re: PerlDL
license)"):
...
> I think Christian is right, and documentation *is* software.
I broadly speaking agree. Certainly ordinary user or developer
documentation for an ordinary piece of software should be covered by
the DFSG just as strictly as the software itself.
However, I do think that it is reasonable for people who put out
standards documents of one kind or another to want to restrict who can
put out modified versions in general. In order for standards
processes to work properly it's reasonable to require that such
modified versions be distributed _for the purpose of developing the
relevant standard(s)_.
I think this exception should only apply to non-executable
documentation; that is to say, anything that has an effect other than
to display or print some text and/or diagrams determined largely by
the author is not documentation.
I don't know whether we should require that the source to standards
documents be distributed.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
