Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
This is probably my weekly restating of position. Don't be surprised if
I don't contribute much to this thread any more.
Lynn Winebarger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Oh, but it is artificial. The common usage of software refers only
*Your* common usage. To me, software are the bits in the computer that
aren't hardware... I know the mess media can't tell the difference, but
they can't tell what a hacker is either.
> I can only assume that it was easier for the people on debian-legal (at
> least) to stretch the definition of software to cover everything they wanted
> to be free than to get a vote to officially change the guidelines to reflect
> the expansion.
Not really. There are some of us who consider all electronically stored
works as software, not just programs. Also, there has not yet been
a robust definition of the two that doesn't allow things to skip from
software to documents and back again to evade exclusions of non-free
software. Finally, if some electronically-held works are not software,
then should Debian distribute them? Currently, the SC suggests not.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884