Re: Licenses for non-software works, and the definition of softw
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
> > It *is* possible to have these issues addressed in another document.
> > Maybe, one that describes the conditions for all files that get to
> > go into main. For software, it can point to the DFSG, for other
> > files, it can handle as is fitting (and we don't know what that is,
> > yet)...
Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as non-software files.
Software refers to the mutability of the media, not the contents.
The distinction between code and data is contextual.
However, I agree that -- at least in principle -- we could have multiple
documents describing freedoms we require to be associated with different
kinds of files.
Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> True. That is a sensible option.
>
> However, the DFSG then needs to clearly indicate what its domain is,
> of cours.
Then again, changing the DFSG to make these distinctions clear, without
also supplying something to fill in the holes, is a big step backwards.
--
Raul
Reply to: