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

Re: Unidentified subject!

MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :

> On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
> > word.
> Not at all.  It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
> tell.  It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored
> in the computer, when the WW2-ish phrase "stored program" was not
> adequate.  The first known use in print is John W Tukey in the January
> 1958 edition of American Mathematical Monthly, with a short and vague
> explanation as "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects,"
> contrasted with hardware.  As with any neologism, it may have fuzzed a
> little, but the contrast with hardware is constant.

And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?

Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
all to have a complete free operating system. 
If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be non-free
without that being a problem, why refusing to include a documentation
that include a non-program software (technical documentation is
likely program)?

> > Likewise, in the term "Free
> > Software Movement" and "Free Software Foundation", "software" refers
> > specifically to computer programs.  Our criteria for free software
> > licenses concern licenses for computer programs.
> I am not familiar with the "Free Software Movement" organisation and
> can find no record of it.  The "Free Software Foundation" uses an odd
> definition of software.

Maybe because the software that must be included in a Free Software
Operating System is mostly programs and documentation... 

> > You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
> > licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as
> > you would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses).  I
> > would rather ask why they should be the same, since they deal with
> > different situations.
> Why should they be different?  The freedom to adapt other literary
> works is no less necessary than the freedom to adapt programs.  I
> suspect we have opinions on that, if your views are similar to the
> other GNU project members who support FDL and have participated on
> this list.

So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
DFSG-compliant, software or not.

It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. 

As a matter of fact, you are no longer discussing about an Operating

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: