Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> [...] international agreements and most countries worldwide
> make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is
> protected by law.
Please substantiate this. UK law explicitly says that computer programs
are literary works with the exception that moral rights do not subsist.
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm#mdiv3
Nothing is said about software in general. However, IANAIntlL and I
don't know if this is normal, or even repeated elsewhere, so I keep asking
for references. I don't think we have quoted equivalent references for
the opposite case and I can't see how there is any case for splitting
software into programs and documentation without it. Maybe someone did
and I missed it. (Memory of a goldfish, me. Feel free to remind me.
Memory of a goldfish, me.)
I feel that we are being asked to say that "software means the same as
programs" more or less. That leaves a nasty taste.
The discussion about what is free documentation is not really relevant
to Debian. Debian cannot just contain the free documentation. It has
to contain an entire copyrighted work, which I think is part of Debian's
problem with the FDL. So, we have to try to come up with guidelines
for what we mean by free copyrighted work. Coo, the DFSG...
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Reply to: