> >> feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software
> > Which is what the whole issue is about. FSF says `documentation is not > > software'. Debian says `whatever we carry in our CDs is software'. On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > In a nutshell, ignoring the wording problems and so on, this is the > largest difference. Debian seems to follow the meaning of the word > "software" as used by Tukey, while FSF are using the modern mass > media's "software" (= "programs"). And note that some people think that software is a more general term than programs (which itself is a more general term than "source code"), and who also think the DFSG requires more careful handling of programs than of software. In the case of documentation -- it is reasonable to think that documentation is not always software (in the general case, when it's printed on paper, I have no reason to think it's software). But that's a matter of form, not purpose. -- Raul