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.
This is incorrect. The first group feels the need to continue the original definition of "software" and resist attempts to redefine it as an approximate synonym of "programs". I suspect a lot of this group do the same for the word "hacker". I think you should familiarise yourself with the definition of "software". Here's a quote from my previous message to -legal:
It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored in the computer, when the WW2-ish phrase "stored program" was not adequate. The first known use in print is John W Tukey in the January 1958 edition of American Mathematical Monthly, with a short explanation as "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects," contrasted with hardware. As with any neologism, it may have fuzzed a little, but the contrast with hardware is constant.
The second group declares the literal meaning stupid and obviously not meant and tries to get what the authors meant.
Bruce Perens has given his opinion about what he meant, too, and it's not that software is only programs.
I am not sure that this is the best forum to have this discussion. Should we move to -project or similar?
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/