Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> |--------------------------------------
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
> Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording difference.
I don't think these are "pretty much the same thing". Not at
all. Raul's version (which is the current version) says that Debian
contains only free software. Andrew's version says that Debian
contains only free stuff. The difference is in the non-software
category. Raul's version, taken literally, says that Debian contains
nothing else than software (else it wouldn't be 100% software, so
surely not 100% free software). Which isn't true, has never been true,
and thus could lead the reader to think that the original author of
this sentence meant "100% of the software in Debian will free" or "All
the software on Debian will be 100% free". Thus not saying anything
about non-software.
This is the crux of the disagreement between people saying "the Debian
Free *Software* Guidelines apply as-is to documentation" and the
people saying "documentation not software, different ethics, different
rules".
The first group feels the need to redefine the semantic of "software"
because, according to the current foundation documents, Debian can't
ship anything but software. We have to ship documentation, so we
redefine documentation as software. And then, clearly, the DFSoftwareG
apply, because it is software.
The second group declares the literal meaning stupid and obviously not
meant and tries to get what the authors meant.
(All this is obviously my understanding and my analysis of the
situation.)
--
Lionel
Reply to: