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

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:

	Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of

As an aside, I'd like to note that several reputable dictionaries agree with the definition of software being the part of the computer that is not hardware. So it's not my very own special definition; quite the opposite, its a common usage of the word.

	But all this does not help you to restrict other peoples to
not use this defintion outside the scope of DFSG.

That's correct. I can't. I can't stop anyone from using a word however they please. I can stop people from saying "inflammable" to mean "flammable" either. That's one of those things about living in a (semi-)free society: People are allowed to speak as they chose.

And it is very
probable that people will use this definftion in any context, even
very harmful.

Then those contexts need to be more careful either in defining terms they use or in selecting better terms. Software was originally defined in opposition to hardware; anyone who wrote their copyright laws assuming another usage without defining it is the real problem here.

 So, you encourage, intentionaly or not, the harmful
for users interpretation of copyright.  This harm (_real_ harm,
there are plenty of cases when propietary content vendors use the
'everything digital is software' argument)

And I doubt that has anything to do with Debian.

	You can not ignore the existence of a laws even if you will
try twice as hard.

If we were ignoring laws, we could just declare "Copyright is dead. Governments are obsolete. Technology conquers all. Subscribe to Wired!" and disband -legal.

No matter how -legal (and most of the computing community, for that matter) defines "software", in any sane country, its your actions that will land you in jail, not the DFSG.

Reply to: