Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 06:20:32PM +1200,
Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
> In the meantime I'll be content with the definition of software that
> WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) provides:
>
> n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
> and associated documentation pertaining to the operation
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It should be noted that, in countries like France, where software and
non-software-but-still-implemented-with-1-and-0s are treated
differently (the author does not have the same right, wether he is a
novelist or a programmer, even if he types both works on the same
laptop), the same rule apply: the associated documentation is treated
like the program. So, Emacs' info files or docstrings in languages
like Python or Lisp are not really a problem, after all.
Reply to: