Per Lundberg wrote: > That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code" > in the same way as software. > > TW> And programming is kind of art. > > Sure. But *software* is not art.
If programming is a means of artistic expression, surely software must be an art form. For some time on the LDP mailing list I've put the argument that there should not be a difference between licenses for documentation and licenses for software. I'm yet to be presented with a compelling reason for treating them differently from a license perspective. I'm quite concerned about some aspects of the proposed DGPL and intend to discuss those concerns with rms directly. I believe it is a mistake to allow concessional restrictions of freedom to documentation, and other types of non-"software" work, that you would not allow to software. The free in "Free" documentation, should mean the same as the free in "Free" Software. Terry
