[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

Fedor Zuev wrote:
KD>Your definition seems to differ from standard usage.

	What is the standard usage?

I can't exactly define a "standard" usage, but in my experience most people would consider all binary executables as "software". What else is also considered software is one of the subjects for this debate.

However, I believe the difference between "software" and "documentation" is a bit of a red-herring. I have yet to see any convincing arguments why "documentation" (however one wants to define the term) should be allowed to be less free than any (other) software.

The arguments which I've heard basically boil down to:
1) The GNU manuals should be allowed into main, so we need to find some way to allow a license which would be considered non-free if applied to a program to be applied to the manuals. -- This is putting the cart before the horse. There are guidelines, and we should judge what is put into main by the guidelines, rather than judging the guidelines by what we want to put into main.

Umm... havn't really heard any other arguments (although I'm sure I've missed something important someone said). The mention about documentation being allowed _more_ freedom under copyright law than software isn't a reason to allow documentation into main which is licensed under a license which wouldn't be allowed for software. If anything it's the reverse...

-- Keith

Reply to: