RMS wote: >For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software" >in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs >only. This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
>The main difference between a program and documentation is that a >program does something, while documentation is passive; By this argument, source code to a program (of the sort which must be compiled to run) is not a program. And can therefore, in your opinion be encumbered by unlimited numbers of Invariant Sections (presumably in 'mandatory comments') while remaining free, as long as they can be removed from the actual executable binary, I suppose. Correct? Furthermore, a manual in any markup format (LaTeX, HTML, info, texinfo) is not passive: it does something, namely generating the actual manual in the intended-to-read format (printed, visible on screen in 'info' or 'mozilla', etc.) So manuals in any markup format -- including all the GNU manuals -- are thus akin to programs, and should be judged by those criteria. Correct? This is far from a bright-line distinction. It's such a fuzzy distinction that's it's probably not useful at all. >Another difference is that distribution of programs on paper is >rare, and not an important case to consider, whereas distribution of >documentation on paper is a very important case. OK, so this is an actual distinction. I will concede that the clauses which apply *only* to distribution of printed copies may be defensible in this way. >Another difference is that the you can see the words of the text in >the manual, whereas you cannot see the source code in the executable >of a program. LaTeX markup vs. PostScript output? Some stuff in the source code is visible in the 'final' version; other stuff isn't. (Much the same is true with programs.) Not a real difference. > For software, the danger is that the source won't be >available at all. The same danger *does* exist for manuals. For instance, distributing only the postscript or 'dvi' version of a manual written in TeX. > For manuals, there is a real danger that the >"source" will be in a format that free software cannot read, and thus >useless. The same danger *does* exist for programs, and happens often: a 'free' program written in an interpreted language with no free interpreter or translator is effectively non-free in exactly the same way. Yet there is no similar clause in the GPL. > This is why we designed the requirement for "transparent" >copies. Which is very poorly drafted (it seems to effectively prohibit any source format which is not hand-written in a text editor), but not a fundamental point of disagreement. >Another difference is that DRM systems to stop people from accessing >documents are a real threat to our freedom, and we need to try to push >against them in any way we can. Not a difference. They're being applied to programs too. And from earlier in the message: >I would rather ask why they should be the same, since they deal with >different situations. I have explained this before, and I will repeat it. Programs and program documentation are inherently linked; transfer between them is essential and basic. Literate programming styles encourage documentation to be extracted directly from program source code, and documentation to be embedded directly in program source code. Even when this is not done, documentation on a computer routinely has source code which is compiled into an 'executable' version, just like programs. Every issue which has come up relating to freeness of programs has turned out to apply to documentation on a computer, and every issue relating to freeness of documentation on a computer has turned out to apply to programs. --Nathanael
