Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

Hi Dwarf,

Please don't take the fact that I'm continuing with this as a personal attack.
I don't think we've quite got to the ``Yes it is! No it isn't!'' stage, 
although we're not far off ;-)
If everyone else is fed up with this, mail me privately, and I'll drop it.

BTW if the licence is the way it is because the LCS board decided that it 
should be so, and any attempt to change it would result in them choosing 
someone else to do the implementation, just say so, and I'll shut up.

---

Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
> If the validation suite works on a compliant system then,
> by definition, any system that it doesn't work on will be non-compliant.

So any system that uses ``ash'' as it's /bin/sh is non-compliant ?

(I bring your attention to the == vs. = bug in the final equality test)

While this is a totally trivial example, it does show that the validation suit 
can fail to work on a compliant system (unless you are going to tell me that
the standard mandates bash as /bin/sh --- it doesn't does it ?)

> > bug in the script.  Say I find what I believe to be the bug, and I want a
> > few people with known good systems to test the patched version to ensure
> > that is still declares their systems sound --- I cannot do it with the
> > current licence.
> > 
> Well, I agree that the letter of the copyright could be seen to forbit
> this, but I wouldn't consider that "distribution" of the changes, unless
> you passed them off as the standard without the authorization of the
> committee.

Are you really doing the KDE thing here, and saying ``oh, yea, that might be 
what the license says, but obviously we don't mean it'' ?

If you don't object to that sort of ``helpful redistribution'', you might as
well use the GPL.

    GPL section 2 subsection a)

    You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

Just emphasise that point in the copyright statement, with a clause like this:

  Any attempt to pass a modified version of this code off as the unmodified
  LCS verification suit will be considered in violation of the licence.
  See clause 2) subsection a) of the GPL.
  Please ensure that there is not the slightest possibility of there being
  any confusion on the part of someone receiving your modified version.

Also, you seem to think there are people out there that would actually use the 
modifiability of the code to undermine the standard.  If that were the case, 
they can do it as things stand, by just publishing a test suit of the same
name, but of their own creation.

You would have no copyright control over their code, and since you don't own 
``LCS'' as a trademark or similar you cannot object (via the law) to people
writing code that generates the output:

  This system is LCS compliant. Congratulations!

Anything you did do about this sort of thing, could also be done to anyone who 
was disingenuous in their use of rights supposedly granted under the GPL.

This no-modification licence for the code is just not giving you the benefits
that you are claiming (if you say ``no I'm not claiming that'', please 
reiterate the benefit of using this licence, because I've obviously 
misunderstood you).

N.B.  I'm still not suggesting that you should distribute the standard itself
  under a ``modifiable'' license.  Allowing the public to distribute modified 
  versions of the standard would be disaster.

The way I see it, this choice of licence reduces the maintainability of the 
validation code.

It also makes you look bad, because you are representing Debian in this
matter, but at the same time you are ignoring our Social Contract:

  2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
  ...

Lastly, and I know this is an unlikely scenario, and I certainly wish you no 
harm, but if you were killed in a plane crash just before fixing the last bug 
in the verification suit, the current license would mean that we would have to 
rewrite the whole thing from scratch, rather than just fix it.    [sorry, I 
probably have a slightly sick way of looking at the world, but I think having 
some of my code in wide use after my death would be quite a nice memorial]

Cheers, Phil.

P.S. I like your "Once you start throwing dirt, you begin loosing ground."
  comment.  :-)