Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:52:57 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev <fedor@earth.crust.irk.ru> said:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>> Fedor Zuev <fedor@earth.crust.irk.ru> writes:
>>> Documentation in not a software.
>> This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which
>> turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other
>> times documentation is embedded into source code or source code is
>> embedded into documentation? What about literate programming?
> I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear.
> But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
> existed copyright laws) makes this difference. Difference, based not
> on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. In some cases
> you can't anyway ignore such difference, because law demands to make
> it. And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you
> can, because such difference benefits you.
So what does the law say when the same bits serve as code,
data, and documentation, all at once? What if there is no separation
possible, based even on function, since the same software serves all
these purposes?
manoj
--
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some
dead stuff." Dave Enyeart
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: