Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)

["Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>]

Don Armstrong wrote:

[snip]

> If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we
> should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from
> documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this.
> [I cannot do it, but perhaps someone else is able.]

[snip]

What about

1. Documentation:

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) :

  documentation

     The multiple kilograms of macerated, pounded, steamed,
     bleached, and pressed trees that accompany most modern
     software or hardware products (see also tree-killer).
     Hackers seldom read paper documentation and (too) often resist
     writing it; they prefer theirs to be terse and on-line.  A
     common comment on this predilection is "You can't grep dead
     trees".  See drool-proof paper, verbiage, treeware.


From WordNet (r) 1.7 :

  documentation

       2: program listings or technical manuals describing the
          operation and use of programs [syn: software
          documentation]



2. Software:

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) :

     (Or "computer program", "program") The
     instructions executed by a computer, as opposed to the
     physical device on which they run (the "{hardware").
     "{Code" is closely related but not exactly the same.

     [snip]

     Some claim that documentation (both paper and electronic) is
     also software.  Others go further and define software to be
     programs plus documentation though this does not correspond
     with common usage.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov