Re: Software definition, was: A possible GFDL compromise
On 15 Sep 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :
>
> > On 2003-09-15 07:40:04 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > - But it may also means that the only content that can be on a
> > > Debian CD must be software under the definition that I
> > > copied from two dictionnaries in the mail I just sent. [...]
> >
> > For one, I cannot understand where you get this requirement.
> >
> > Curiously, dicofr.com claims that "logiciel" was defined in 1967 by
> > Philippe Renard as a direct replacement for the English meaning, as
> > the intangible part of the computer, but then goes on to say it is now
> > a synonym for program. My nearby copy of Larousse and
> > francophonie.hachette-livre.fr only have the program meaning. Maybe
> > French has become corrupted, similar to some English dictionaries?
> > Someone with more resources
>
>
> I do not need dicofr to define the word Logiciel.
>
> But anyway, the following is the definition of the Academie Française:
>
>
> 1)*LOGICIEL n. m. XXe siècle. Dérivé de logique.
>
> INFORM. Ensemble structuré de programmes remplissant une
> fonction déterminée, permettant l'accomplissement d'une tâche
> donnée. Logiciel de traitement de texte, de dessin. Logiciel
> éducatif, pédagogique. Logiciel de simulation, de jeu. Le
> logiciel d'exploitation d'un ordinateur. Il s'est substitué à
> l'anglais Software, qui n'a plus à être employé.
>
>
> It's pretty clear. You may claim that the Academie Française and all
> the French people use a corrupted definition of Logiciel (it's not
> that the etymology would says). But the French language is made by the
> French and by the Academie Française.
>
I think you missed the point. I believe the point was that logiciel was
originally intended as a replacement for "software", but now seems to be
more of a replacement for "program". Hence not being a replacement for
"Software" in the DFSG. L'Academie can say it is a replacement for
software all they want, but if it doesn't mean the same thing, then it
clearly isn't.
-- Keith
Reply to: