Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> > Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > If we take "program" to mean "a sequence of instructions that a computer
> > > can interpret and execute", then it's reasonable to consider a font file
> > > as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:21:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sure, but not bitmaps. Bitmaps are not "sequences of instructions".
> Why not?
Um, ok, then they are. I'm not sure I care either way. Are you now
in agreement that we did not need to change the Social Contract at
all; and that *everything* that is made of bits is software?
I am not interested in a rigid distinction between programs and data;
I am (as a general rule) interested in avoiding the needless attempt
to rigidly specify everything.
We have never in the past had a rigid definition of "source code". We
got by just fine without it, we will continue to do so.