On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:49:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Consider a source code file that has Doxygen-style comments intertwined > with it. Is that file source (i.e., a program), or is it documentation? That's not particularly complicated: it's the source of both a program and some documentation. > Consider a webserver with static pages, but static pages that are full > of JavaScript. From the viewpoint of the webserver, are those pages > programs, or data? The webserver's viewpoint doesn't matter, any more than less's viewpoint matters merely because it can be pointed at both documentation and files in /usr/bin. > Consider the already beaten-to-death horse of firmware. When compiled > into the kernel, is firmware a program, or is it data? It's data as far as the kernel is concerned, and a program as far as the external processor that it's firmware for is concerned. This doesn't change depending on how it's distributed, and the fact that it is a program is why it got an explicit exception in the sarge release policy. > In all three of these situtations, many will argue one; many others will > argue the other. It is hard, if not impossible, to come up with a > definition of "programs" vs "data" that is not problematic. That's okay: we deal with problems all the time. In this case we have a particularly easy way of dealing with situations that aren't clear: we say "well, that's a bit iffy, so we've got to say `no'." The fact that you or I can't write down rules that are precise enough for a computer program or lawyer to follow deterministically doesn't mean that we can't do the job anyway. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature