On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 13:13 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
If there is something that won't fall into exactly one of them, then they can't be separated completely. However, we can distinguish them as concepts because there is something which will fall into exactly one of them, so it's also a fallacy to say those categories are indistinguishable.
I _think_ I agree with that :D
[...]
The law talks in terms of function, not form, and thus the freeness is based on function, not form.
It talks in terms of both, doesn't it? That's part of the reason why the law on this is a bit of a dog's breakfast and why freedom debates about it are messy.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example where it talks of form. In terms of the UK, it gets close - e.g., no moral rights for computer programs, supposedly no patents either - but it never really gets into what "computer program" actually means. Indeed, most of the patent games people have played in the past (a computer program on a fixed disk, a computer program running on a computer, etc.) have tended to be on the edges of what function something can have given its form.
Our law tends not to define stuff too closely, and leave it up to case law - so when it says things like "electronic copies" I guess that for all intents and purposes means "digital copies" right now, but possibly not in the future. Certainly "computer program" can be construed more widely than simply "digital file which a computer can execute".
In terms of the current debate, I think it's valid to look at things from either a form or a function standpoint. The form argument makes sense in certain situations: e.g., I know a number of debian-legal subscribers adhere to that viewpoint, and when you're shipping something which is digital then having rules which concern all digital information makes sense.
What I object to is the argument that the functional standpoint is fallacious. Either standpoint has "problems". As an example, I've seen a number of cases of documentation that has been covered by the GPL. Not only is that a complete stretch (a stretch too far, for me) in terms of the language, you're potentially in real trouble if you want to print that stuff out. Assuming it's arguably a "non-source form" under GPLv3, you have to choose between one of 6a-6e which become increasingly bizarre in terms of hard-copy literature. While for some documentation under the GPL is ok, for me I would find it difficult to describe it as "free". If you have someone else doing manual lay-up for pre-print, it's obviously non-free because there can never be any "corresponding source" so you're basically buggered.
Cheers,
Alex.