Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:27:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org>
> >It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
> >to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
>
> One good definition of software is "the part of a computer that's not
> hardware". Another is "Information in a format designed
> to be read by a machine". It's hardly artificial to use these
> definitions and say that everything Debian distributes, except the
> physical CDs, is software.
Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
drive.
> The point has already been made that the DFSG requirements *are*
> just as necessary for documentation as they are for
> programs. (The same motivations apply.)
The same motivations apply, but your argument ignores the fundamental
difference between non-programs and programs. For innstance:
* Where is the executable for the King James Bible?
* How do I make sure I distribute the source code? What IS the source
code? Is it the TIFFs pre-OCR? Is it the OCR'd text? (These first two
points speak to DFSG #2 -- how can you distribute something in source code
and compiled form when it has neither)
> The point has further been made that the requirements are just
> as necessary for standards documents as they are for programs. (The
> same motivations apply.)
The fact that a point has been made does not mean that it is correct. For
instance, once again, where is the source code and executable? Where is our
compelling interest in being able to distribute a modified RFC822?
-- John
Reply to: