Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
Georg C. F. Greve <greve@gnu.org> wrote:
> But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
> From its function, not its aesthetics.
So let's not encourage the use of this license for software manuals.
It's not an essay, it's a manual.
> The very same people who have been lumping together totally different
> areas of law such as copyright, patents and trademarks under the
> "intellectual property rights" terminology are still careful enough to
> differentiate between software and what they call "content."
>
> That is because there is a significant difference between software and
> music, documents, prose or other things usually referred to as content
> by these people:
>
> If I have a single word processor that I like, I usually have all the
> word processors that I need, only very few people will use more than
> one.
>
> If I have one piece of prose that I like, I usually do not have all
> the prose I need/want. The same goes for documentation or music. In
> fact hearing some piece of music usually motivates me to get more.
So you want us to pretend that the work these Artists do is free because
writing is so much more artistic than coding? I'm judging the impact of
the license here, not the content it licenses.
> So the patterns of distribution of software are mutually exclusive,
> whereas the distribution patterns of works of art are mutually
> supportive.
>
> And unlike most works of art -- for which aesthetics or philosophical
> advancement is the use -- software derives its usefulness almost
> exclusively from its function.
I guess that makes us code writers much lower in the hierarchy.
Peter
Reply to: