* Stephan Seitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:01:20AM -0400, Marty wrote: > >license, which *is* considered a free license. In my opinion, all the > >analogies fall short because documentation is not software, regardless > >of Debian's dogmatic claims to the contrary. > > If you mean with documentation some files you have on your computer, then > they are of course software. They may not be programs but they are > software. > > Shade and sweet water! > > Stephan
I have never thought of this that way before, but it sounds like a very sound approach. As a person very supportive of the ideas of RMS and the FSF I had some initial trouble coming to grips with why Debian was taking this rather odd looking position. But, after having read some commentary and such online it seems to me now like the only thing to do really. People often seem to resent what looks like a personal political idea getting in the way of the system. In this case it is suggested that Debian is being petty and fighting over trivial political stuff. However, it seems to me that it is the other way around. I think, and I trust I will be corrected if I am wrong, RMS is trying to treat documentation and manuals for free software like either a book or a political manifesto. I could understand his ideas about much of this if he were discussing a print or online publication or article, but not the documentation for free software. It is argued that these 'invariant' sections must exist since without them a person could present their own ideas as if they were those of another, or vice versa. In a book, or a political tract, this matters, but really how does it apply to presenting the technicals on using a piece of software? And isn't that the same kind of thinking which some use to attack free programs? Why should specific comments, cover sheets and so on have to be maintained in a work of this nature? It really makes no sense, and comes down to a personal insistence on the part of RMS that specific political commentary and the like be kept a part of the work for ever. I really do like Stallman's ideas, and those of the FSF. I think they have done immense good for software and the world in general. It is too easy to forget that systems like Debian are here very much because of the "petty" bickering RMS. As I see the likes of Ubuntu come up and the inevitable suggestions about the silly positions of these "fanatics" which just keeps us from having fancy things like Windows, I can't help but think people are forgetting what things are all about. You should go home with the date that brought you, and we have so much great software at least in great part thanks to the work of people like RMS. Where would free software be without fanatics protecting free software? However, sometimes people don't always get it right, and this time it seems to me that Stallman is looking at this wrong, and Debian's position just makes more sense overall. Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
