> >> feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software
> > Which is what the whole issue is about. FSF says `documentation is not
> > software'. Debian says `whatever we carry in our CDs is software'.
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> In a nutshell, ignoring the wording problems and so on, this is the
> largest difference. Debian seems to follow the meaning of the word
> "software" as used by Tukey, while FSF are using the modern mass
> media's "software" (= "programs").
And note that some people think that software is a more general term
than programs (which itself is a more general term than "source code"),
and who also think the DFSG requires more careful handling of programs
than of software.
In the case of documentation -- it is reasonable to think that
documentation is not always software (in the general case, when it's
printed on paper, I have no reason to think it's software). But that's
a matter of form, not purpose.
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: GFDL
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>