Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
- From: Andreas Metzler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 22 Aug 2003 12:04:55 GMT
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <20030731171312.GB3205@wile.excelhustler.com> <20030731190215.GI12795@donarmstrong.com> <20030731190215.GI12795@donarmstrong.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030820200337.GQ12795@donarmstrong.com>
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>> So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
>> software and documentation, please send it on this list.
>> There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
> There clearly is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't need two words
> for the concept.
> However, you still have not brought forward a definition that
> adequately draws a bright line to distinguish between software and
> documentation. That is, at what point does software stop being
> software and become documentation, and vice versa?
Actually we don't necessarily need that much, separating "100%
documenation" and "everything else" should be good enough, and we can
apply DFSG to the latter category (including "100% software" and
cu and- not taking any side pro/contra splitting doc/software.