Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not
>> claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead,
> Are you sure?
Yes.
> Quote Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>:
> > 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.
This quote does not claim that they are identical. Being able
to distinguish software from documentation in order to treat them
differently would mean that the two sets "documentation" and "software"
are exclusive. For if they are not exclusive, any documentation that
is software would not need a new set of guidelines to be in debian,
ergo there is no need to treat them differently. However, if it can
be demonstrated that they can be distinguished, it gives form to the
"difference" claims.
The negation (they have a non-empty intersection) is not the same as
saying that they are identical. I think this is not complicated, so I
hope that I have been detailed enough in explaining it.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Reply to: