Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:
> [...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
> part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no
> difference between software and documentation.
This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not
claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead,
it was claimed that documentation stored on computers is a subset
of software. This means that when we talk of software, it includes
documentation.
Maybe the "there is no difference" point was regarding the basic laws?
Although many have claimed that software has special copyright law, only
laws giving computer programs special treatment have been presented so far
and all of them have treated programs as a literary work. Comments to
the list suggest that this is generally true, in order to use various
international agreements. It would be interesting if anyone has a law
on software rather than just programs, or a copyright act dealing with
software not as a literary work.
Then again, I'm not sure it is particularly relevant to this discussion
any more, in light of other messages, so maybe off-list is best.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Reply to: