Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just checked my dictionaries and checked "define:software" on Google, and > most sources define software along the lines of "computing programs designed > to perform various applications, e.g. word processing"[1]. That is, only the > pieces of information that is used to make the computer run is included in > the definitions.
Most sources are biased. Think about what the source may gain or lose if more people realise they are producing software rather than "electronic books" or whatever. The program-only definition isn't the original one. An example that I think is the earliest one in print from Tukey was given on debian-legal many months ago. The one quoted above is also terribly wrong. That definition would mean that some of the programs in debian aren't software because they do not perform an application themselves. Ow. It shames the FSF that they only care about free programs rather than free software. Some of their prominent members have written about the absurdity about trying to distinguish types of bitstream in order to apply different rules, but the advice hasn't been heeded by FSF. Finally, I suspect it is easier for second-language speakers of English to mis-equate "program" and "software", especially if they consult a bilingual dictionary. It seems that some languages don't have their own word for software, only one for program. Ow. -- MJR/slef
