On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 11:09, Mathieu Roy wrote: > MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté : > > > On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote: > > > because it's out of the scope of > > > _software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is > > > software). > > > > Mathieu can say this as much as he likes, but it does not make it > > true. It is not necessary to pretend that all works are software, > > just to know that all works in Debian are software. What is true, > > definitely for Debian and probably in general, is that these works on > > computer are software. Once again, people who disagree with Debian's > > definition of free software may have to collect some things that they > > think free from outside Debian: this is not new. > > > Software: "(computer science) written programs or procedures > or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation > of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory" > (from WordNet 1.7). > > I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software, > unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know. > > For most people on earth, I do not think that software defines "theses > works" (philosophical/political/historical texts) that may be "on > computer". > However the FSF have decided to include these "philosophical/political/historical texts" as part of the "associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system". This therefore makes them part of that associated documentation, and thus includes them in your own quoted definition of Software. Discussion of whether or not they fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines is very relevant. If those texts *were not* part of the software documentation (and therefore Software), and were a document distributed separately, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. > However, you can have your own definition of software. But it's seems > to me just a poor way to defend what seems to be your true feeling: > that every texts, of every kind, on computer or not, should follow the > Free Software rules. > My personal feeling... Software is computer programs and all associated documentation, data files, etc. Debian is a distribution of software so should include nothing not matching this definition. Philosophical, political and historical texts, when included in a program's documentation, are part of that software. When not included in a program's documentation, they are not software and shouldn't be included in Debian. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part