*To*: debian-legal@lists.debian.org*Subject*: Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem*From*: MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>*Date*: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:40:12 -0000*Message-id*: <[🔎] slrnbjpols.67a.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>*References*: <[🔎] 8765l1k88v.fsf@wasp.nowan.org> <[🔎] bhe41a$8va$1@sea.gmane.org> <[🔎] 1060809711.18923.211.camel@gargantubrain.dartmouth.edu> <[🔎] bhelik$7h4$1@sea.gmane.org> <[🔎] 948.1060832172@mixed> <[🔎] bhfakg$124$1@sea.gmane.org> <[🔎] 1504.1060872594@mixed> <[🔎] bhgod0$j2v$1@sea.gmane.org> <[🔎] 20030814204638.GL13227@tennyson.netexpress.net> <[🔎] 20030814204638.GL13227@tennyson.netexpress.net> <[🔎] bhi975$htb$2@sea.gmane.org> <[🔎] slrnbjpg4m.3q4.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet> <[🔎] slrnbjpg4m.3q4.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet> <[🔎] bhiklo$33n$2@sea.gmane.org>

Sergey Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: >> Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the >> nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated? > 1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible > "software" definitions it mean. Probably there was only one definition > at the time DFSG was created (or one definition was just missed). There are not two possible correct definitions of "software". The word is not equivalent to "computer programs" at all. > 2. New license which depends on differnce between software and > documentation appears. Where? (The FDL does not depend on such a difference: it wasn't designed for documentation to be free software, and seems to be impossible to use for such. IIRC, the FDL even has different conditions for when the documentation is software itself, compared to paper and ink.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

**References**:**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Stephen Ryan <taketwoaspirin@deepthought.dartmouth.edu>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Sergey Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>

**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem***From:*Sergey Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem** - Next by Date:
**Then let's hear your proposal** - Previous by thread:
**Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem** - Next by thread:
**Then let's hear your proposal** - Index(es):