Re: [Koha-devel] Koha Documentation Structure

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-10-04 19:04:03 +0100 Andres Tarallo <address@hidden> wrote:

> As far as I understood things that are not software (like, books, 
> drawings or 
> music) are not well covered by the GPL.

Yes, here is the long and short of the problem: a lot of people are 
going around saying phrases like that. You can't argue with it: no-one 
can say "this book is software" with absolute certainty because I can 
have a printed copy rather than a disk. Those things *can be* 
software, but need not be.

One thing that clouds the matter is that some languages (is French 
one?) have dictionaries that claim a word for program (logiciel) is a 
synonym for a word for software (software), which is a bit wrong. Some 
languages get it right. Esperanto might be one: program - programo; 
software - programaro. The extra -ar- indicates a collection centred 
around, as I understand it, but I'm not sure of the limits.

Anyway, hardware is the physical computer system - the components and 
trappings. Software has an opposite meaning to hardware. Software is 
the intangible transient part of the computer: the material stored on 
little magnetised elements of ferrous oxide, temporary electrical 
levels in silicon chips or whatever. Software includes programs stored 
in the computer, but is not only programs. John Tukey first used the 
word in print (American Mathematical Monthly, January 1958) describing 
it as the "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects." 
[Aside: is firmware really software or hardware?]

In part because of this, myself and others think it's fair to apply 
the same tests of freeness to all our creative work, rather than just 
programs, as long as they are computerised. I still call it free 
software, but some I know call it "free media" to placate those who 
deny books can be software.

The GPL actually has a fun definition right at the start of the 
licence:

"0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a 
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed 
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, 
refers to any such program or work, ..."

In the GPL, Program means whatever "program or other work" is under 
the GPL!

Now, there may be aspects which aren't well-covered under the GPL, 
like public performance of music, but I'm not very familiar with 
those, so maybe CC are needed. I don't think the bugs in CC have 
anything to do with those aspects, because they hit manuals too.

Actually, I just heard Lawrence Lessig at UCL say to use the GPL for 
software not CC. For manuals that are software, the GPL looks like it 
will apply perfectly well and debian use it for some of theirs.

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk