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

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

Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> wrote:
> 	You want a dictionary war? OK. Lets it begin.

No, I want people to apply some sort of critical ability to the stuff
that goes in their eyes.

> interpret and execute; programs are also called software ....
>                        ----------------------------------

This is the same subset relationship mentioned before, not equivalence.

> http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=software

Mess Media.  I've already said that these people are wrong.  You only
need to think about how they make their money to see why.  These people
have their own agenda.  Reader beware.

> http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0540200.html
> (American Heritage Dictionary)

Never heard of this.  Looks buggy.  Doesn't give etymology.

> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861709912
> (Encarta Enciclopedia)

They have an agenda.  Etymology inaccurate, isn't it?  I quote:

>    [Mid-19th century. Originally, in plural, "soft goods." The modern
>    sense dates from the mid-20th century.]
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=75526&dict=CALD
> (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

I've heard this was buggy and not related to the Cambridge dictionary
of old.

> (The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing)

Correct etymology, but then contradicts it, doesn't it?

> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software
> Computer software
>    (Redirected from Software)
>    Software is a generic term for organized collections of computer data
>    and instructions, often broken into two major categories: system

> 	And, from the myself add that all english-russian
> dictionaries translates "software" equally to the "computer
> programs".

Please report the bug to them.  They are not homonyms and they are
failing customers by claiming so.

> But, even _your_ definition does not make anything better. Ok, I can
> understand, why after bundling documentation with software the
> resulting package may be called software. (this is the exactly what
> says your definition). But it does not help to understand, why you
> wish to call software documents, which is never was related or
> assotiated with any particular program.

I wish to call software documents?  That may be true in some cases, but
is only relevant to distinguishing test development, I think.

>>Please explain how your local laws giving you more rights over a
> 		You know any non-local laws? You know any "local"
> laws for which this is not true?

I know my local laws, which are not local to you, which seem to give
more rights for software than other literary works (for now, at least:
I think there are attempts to change that).  I do not know your local
laws, so asked about them.  Please don't answer requests with questions,
else I shall conclude that your hair is green and tall.

>>text means that the DFSG should not still be satisfied.
> 	I am not say anyting about DFSG should or should not be
> satisfied. Yet.

Then take it out of the list thread, please.

> 	I say, only, that "All digital is a software! Really!"
> theory is harmful.

Again, that is not the claim.

> Harmful for every fair purpose, including the
> justification of application the DFSG to non-software packages.

Debian does not distribute non-software as part of the distribution.

MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://slef@jabber.at

Reply to: