Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
> fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as
> documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing
> familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too.
nroff/troff, the language in which our manual pages are written, is
certainly Turing-complete. Of course, I think one would have to make a
judgement call and say that the primary purpose of most *roff files is
as documentation; if somebody produced a program using *roff, we would
then call that software.
I think we have to judge based on the primary content of the files, not
their format, although there are obviously large grey areas.
(Likewise, consider literate programming, where invariant sections could
conceivably be included as part of C source files.)
Colin Watson [email@example.com]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com