There's been a lot of discussion on this list about the definition of the word "software", with much heat generated. This is a (probably futile) attempt to calm things down.
It seems clear to me that there really are at least two widely held definitions of software. Some people, when they see the word "software", think "computer programs"; others think "any information that is encoded electronically" (definition from Joe Moore). Please, don't assume that people whose definition differs from yours are just making up their definition so that the Social Contract and DFSG have the meaning they want. Be aware that no amount of argument, no quoting of "authoritative" dictionaries, is likely to change what people "really believe" the definition is. Recently it was pointed out that "tabled" means essentially opposite things in British and American English. Rather than getting into a huge flame war about the "true" meaning of "tabled", with reference to legislation, dictionaries, etc., people just avoided the word. It would be nice if we could do the same for "software", but since the word is used within the Social Contract and DFSG, we cannot. Rather than arguing about the true meaning of "software" (which tends to degenerate into "software means X"/"does not"/"does too"/"does not"), if we must have a discussion, it should be on the topic of "The meaning of 'software' in the Social Contract and DFSG". However, I don't see the point in even continuing that discussion until somebody comes up with both (A) a reasonable way to distinguish computer programs from non-programs and (B) a revision of the DFSG to apply to non-programs, along with a good explanation of why the revised version is more appropriate for non-programs than the original. (I've seen people say, essentially, that there's no point discussing (B) without having (A), and others say there's no point discussing (A) without having (B). I agree with all these people; there's no point discussing (A) or (B) unless we have a reasonable proposal for (A) and (B).) I personally have no expectation that (A) or (B) is possible, so I'm perfectly happy with the status quo, where documentation and other non-programs are held to the DFSG. Disclaimers: I am not a Debian Developer. I am not subscribed to this list; I read it via the web archives. If you particularly want a timely response from me, you should Cc: me. Carl Witty
