On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:28 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Here we differ. There are just different definitions of what software means. But this does not change the fact that freedom matters. There are of course different forms of freedom needed for different things.
I think you're probably right here, and one of the things the FDL didn't really get right was that it was attempting to treat the digital and non-digital forms of a work equally, when functionally they are not.
So there are many reasons to not make a distinguish between all those bits contained in an OS by some undefinable criterias wheather they cause the creation of something the CPU interprets (machine code) or to be interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (scripts) one the one side, and things interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (images, texts, ...).
I actually think you're confusing two issues here. The first is, is there some standard of freedom which should apply to all digital content? And the second is, assuming there is a standard, is it possible to apply it to any digital content?
Let's assume the first part for convenience - let's say that we have some given standard of freedom, and that we think all digital content should be upheld to that standard. Is the second part true?
I would say not - I don't believe it's possible to uphold a standard of freedom without distinguishing between "all those bits" ;).
As an example, let's say I have a simple BSD-style licence which allows me to modify and redistribute a digital work. If I apply it to a digital photograph, is that photo free? I would say it pretty much is.
However, if you apply that licence to an executable binary of Emacs (for example), I would say that is not free - sure, in theory I have the freedoms, but in practise without the source I'm stuffed.
Both the photo and Emacs binary are "just a load of bits", but without distinguishing them somehow it's difficult to talk about whether one or the other is "free". I don't see how it's possible to say the photo is free, but the binary is not, without distinguishing them somehow.
Because of this, I would find it difficult to talk about "free software" when "software" includes a variety of non-executable works - I believe it's over-generalisation.
Cheers,
Alex.