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

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?



On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
> > > is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form.
> > 
> > Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient.
> 
> How is this different from documentation?  Most people don't read
> HTML or SGML directly, they use an interpreter.

The difference being that HTML or SGML *can* be read reasonably easy
without an interpreter. While I will accept that there may be people who
are able to read a compiled binary by doing something like 'cat
/usr/bin/foo', I suspect that most people on this planet are not able to
do so. The same is not true for HTML or SGML.

(I'm not suggesting this is a good definition for documentation, but it
is a good lead)

> > But anyway, documentation is not source code.  That is my main quibble.
> 
> It looks like source code, smells like source code, and behaves like
> source code.

Yeah, but its purpose isn't the same as source code.

[...]

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: pgp6vKZKltwnb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: