debian-user dropped, because I don't read that list.
Marty wrote:
>
> I accept this vote regarding "Free Software," but I don't accept your
> implicit re-definition of the word "software" to include documentation.
No one is redefining documentation, nor software.
This is very simple: software is the logical bits. Documentation is the
paper that you hold in your hand. This is why the GFDL is a poor
*software* license, because it applies to paper.
Sometimes, those books get translated to a software form. Sometimes,
software gets translated to a document form.
Remember when cryptographic software was not allowed to be exported from
the USA? Software (PGP in specific) was translated into documentation,
exported (legally!) then re-translated into software.
Use the GFDL to license your documentation. Use the GPL to license the
software translation of your documentation.
> If Debian explicitly states for licensing purposes, that software and
> documentation are considered equivalent, and that the same definition of
> "free" must be applied to both, then that's a different matter and it
> would be easier to accept.
We don't because we don't distribute documentation. We distribute
software.
> But I haven't seen that explicit claim ANYWHERE, and your statement
> that "whether it's software or not is irrelevant," combined with your
> reference to this vote about "software" only begs the question.
There is no need to. That is like asking us to say that we demand open
licenses on the bicycles we distribute. We don't distribute them. We
only distribute software. Nothing else.
It *is* that simple.
--
John H. Robinson, IV jaqque@debian.org
http ((((
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html ((((
Attachment:
pgpT6fIHuPTSG.pgp
Description: PGP signature