Re: Debian Free Documentation Guidelines
Peter Karlsson <email@example.com> wrote:
> I just checked my dictionaries and checked "define:software" on Google, and
> most sources define software along the lines of "computing programs designed
> to perform various applications, e.g. word processing". That is, only the
> pieces of information that is used to make the computer run is included in
> the definitions.
Most sources are biased. Think about what the source may gain
or lose if more people realise they are producing software
rather than "electronic books" or whatever.
The program-only definition isn't the original one. An example
that I think is the earliest one in print from Tukey was given
on debian-legal many months ago. The one quoted above is also
terribly wrong. That definition would mean that some of the
programs in debian aren't software because they do not perform
an application themselves. Ow.
It shames the FSF that they only care about free programs
rather than free software. Some of their prominent members
have written about the absurdity about trying to distinguish
types of bitstream in order to apply different rules, but the
advice hasn't been heeded by FSF.
Finally, I suspect it is easier for second-language speakers
of English to mis-equate "program" and "software", especially
if they consult a bilingual dictionary. It seems that some
languages don't have their own word for software, only one
for program. Ow.