Re: A possible GFDL comporomise: a proposal
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
> FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
> The lump of paper and ink is hardware. Including the various
> splotchesof ink resulting from printing press problems. But the
> 'text of the manual',that abstract entity embodied in the manual,
> is software.
>> 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
> The bits are software, the lump of plastic is hardware.
>> 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware?
> The hunk of paper is hardware, the 'text' in it is software.
>> 3) Why? What differs from 0,1?
> Nothing.
>> 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware?
> The physical punch cards are hardware, the data on them is
> software.
>> 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2?
> Nothing.
>> 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware?
> The lump of plastic is hardware. The data on it is software.
>> 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4?
> Nothing.
>> 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software
>> or hardware?
> Neither, really, but... The printed cover with its actual copy of
> the logo,possibly with some dirt, etc., is hardware. The logo as
> a copyrightable entity embodied on the cover is software.
BTW, there you mentioned the important factor: copyright
status. But you completely abandoned this subject below.
>> 9) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6?
>Nothing.
>> 10) Is Debian installation, hardcoded into embedded system
>> software or hardware?
>This is usually called "firmware". Again, the lump of silicon and
>metalcircuits is hardware, and the data hardcoded into it is
>software.
>>11) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8?
>Nothing.
>To answer a question you didn't ask, the *design spec* for
>a piece of hardware is software. The hardware itself isn't.Get the
>picture?
Yes, this is a good question. But I have also another good
questions. Especially for you (see below).
> This is the extremely useful definition of software I
> use.(Software is a more useful term for discrete/digital data than
> for continuous/analog data, because continuous/analog data can't be
> reproduced without data loss, making the software inseperable from
> the hardware to some degree.)
So, according to your defintion "software" is synonym to
"digital information". Right?
Song written on CDDA is a software, whereas the song written on a
analog magnetic tape (exactly the same object from the
copyright|licensing perspective) is not a software. Right?
Speech, transmissed over digital telephone line is a software,
whereas speech, transmissed over analog telephone line (you even do
not know, which is the case) is not software. Right?
Picture, printed by good printer is a software, whereas picture
printed by broken printer (too many ink) is not software. Right?
Do you really believe that DFSG was designed to make such subtle
(and strange) differences?
Reply to: