Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:50:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
%< snip of definitions >%
> Pretty good. I would have tried to phrase it slightly differently, but you
> have hit the nail on the head.
> If it's represented essentially as a sequence of 1s and 0s in a typical
> digital computer, and can be modified while the machine is running, and
> without moving anything except electrons around, it's software.
thank you. that was the point i was trying to make.
> Yes, there may be subcategories within "software" which may or may not be
> relevant in various situations. In the context of the DFSG, they are not.
i agree fully with the above.
> > this allows us to neatly sidestep the whole issue, because _online_
> > documentation would fit in one of the above four categories of software.
> It's not a neat sidestep, it's just The Way It Is... people trying to justify
> including non-free software (which happens to fall into the "documentation"
> subcategory) in Debian are the ones trying to perform the neat sidestep.
perhaps using sidestep was a poor choice of words. the idea is that it
does not matter _what_ the sub-classifications are. the fact is that all
subclassification are under the heading of ``software'' so it simply
does not matter.
> Oh, and I agree with Manoj; the boundaries of the subcategories are unclear.
i also agree. i realised that as i wrote it. take a perl script: is it a
program? is it data? is it documentation? is it all of the above at the
does it _really_ matter? no. it does not matter. it is still
_software_. the DFSG can apply no matter how you slice the script.
that was the whole point.
please do not get caught up on th subclassifications. they merely
illustrate the point that they are all software; RFC's in electronic