FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Thu Feb 23 13:46:49 UTC 2006

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

>On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:40 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>>Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>>But "read" is not "run" (freedom 0) but "study" (freedom 1).
>>perhaps "perform" or "teach from" or "read aloud" is "run".
>I can't imagine how you can think that.
I argue that "perform" "teach from" and "read" are equivalences of "run" 
for literary works, and I will now explain to you how I think that.
I don't intend to force you into making such a statement.

>First remember that run is a form of ./program (be it interpreter
>program or an executable by itself).
>"perform" you don't perform a book, you read it or segments of it.
That is one use of a book, I have also performed books.
The books were bound scripts.

Perform is an equivalence of run for scripts because it the ultimate 
purpose for which the script was intended.

You may find a meaning of "ultimate purpose" where this is not true, 
perhaps I should use "ultimate use" or "natural area of utility" but I 
am sure you are able to work out the meaning behind my use of "ultimate 

Same for poetry. For novels, "read" is AN equivalence for run when it is 
the ultimate purpose for which the book was intended.
Not all readings are study.

I think you are drawing equivalence by means of word roots, I am drawing 
equivalence by looking at common actions on each type of work in the 
context of the nature of the work.

A program is instructions for a computer to obey (run); a script is 
instructions for performing artists, a poem contains literary and 
cultural directions to be interpreted and expressed by the reader with 
an implicit cultural invitation "to read", as do novels.

Thus we see the similarity of the performance of each type of work, 
although for one it is commonly called "run" and another it is called 
"read" or "perform" or "teach from".

>read is study, hence perform is a form of reading aimed mainly at
read is not always study, a view that many teachers will support. I am 
certain that many artists will argue that perform is not neccessarily 
aimed at others, though many will argue it is.

>You can also perform in that exact same form the source code and it
>still is not running, 
certainly not running in the computer sense, but certainly what I 
suggested running is in the literary sense, which as you point out few 
will want to do, and was not the ulimate purpose for the program.

When I used run in the literary sense I enclosed it in quotes "" to 
attach a different connotation and to emphasise an equivalence.
Here you are using running, a word with the same root but with different 
meaning and applied to something different. It is as if you used a 
different word because you intend a different meaning. The visual 
similarity between "run" as used by me and running used by you is 

Because are argue that they have an equivalence in terms of licensing 
does not mean I argue that humans act the same way to carry out each 

>and most people would be totally pissed off for
>hearing such gibberish as s//%"$/$/dsfsur&sdruywi5/ or whatever
>mind-numbing language you wrote the code (just think brain-fuck).
>"teach from" duplicate example. "teach" is a form of "perfomance"
it a similar example, one tailored to a different type of book.
Some books are written to be taught from.

>"read aloud" duplicate example, see above.
Some books are written to be read aloud.

You pointed out that no-one would want to perform a program vocally, 
neither might one want to perform a teaching book on stage.

I argue that "perform" "teach from" and "read" are equivalences of "run" 
for literary works, and I have now explained to you how I think that.
I don't intend to convince you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20060223/bfda4588/attachment.html>

More information about the Discussion mailing list