[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 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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.

Are you attempting to suggest that sgml approximates to a *compiled*

I would compare it to the source code. I am quite capable of reading
the source of most programs without using an interpreter (compiler),
and predicting what it will do. (In fact, given the halting problem, I
can do it _better_ by hand than I could with a compiler).

> > > 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.

Without justification, this assertion is invalid.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgpJQjhkL93O1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: