Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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?
Law does nothing, because law is not a person and can't do
something. Question, probably, is what does lawyer? Lawyer, AFAIK,
finds the best interpretation of law for his case, and prepares to
fight worst interpretation.
So, you, as paralegal of Debian project, probably, should:
First, know, when there may be the best and worst
interpretation.
Second, ensure that Debian can meet even the worst
interpretation.
Third, ensure, that Debian behavior does not hurt users, not
prevent them from receiving benefits of the best interpretation,
when possible.
IMHO.
Reply to: