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

Re: GFDL compromise - Deadend.

Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> a tapoté :
> > 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.

But being part of a documentation does not change the nature of a

The philosophical/political/historical text really document the
software. But do not at all pertain to the operation of a computer
system (how could it be?).

> > 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.

Ok, so it should not include philosophical/political/historical texts,
whatever the fact they may be invariant or not.

That's something I can understand.

> Philosophical, political and historical texts, when included in a
> program's documentation, are part of that software.

I do not agree. If I quote Kant in a History Scientific paper, it does
not makes this Kant's text I quoted an History-related related
text. It would still be a philosophic text, included in a
History-related text.

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: