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

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> 	Sheer Hyprocrisy. It si OK to have the DFSG which is non-free
>  (no license to redistribute that I can see); it is OK to have most of
>  our software depend on a license that itself is non-free (taken a
>  look at the GPL lately?),  but it is not OK for the LCS? How do you
>  justify that? We follow the FSSTND, which is also non-free. Explain
>  that one.

(1) LCS is a technical document, not a legal document
(2) GPL is a legal document, not a technical document

However, you're right in that we really ought to have a better 
description of what we need, and why.

Aside: My current stance on this whole LCS thing is: let them go
ahead and design the thing.  If I feel that it's important, I'm
perfectly capable of deriving a document which has the same
requirements as LCS yet which is free.  [I'd take care to call
it something else, of course.  And I'd take care to give credit
where credit is due.]

In the mean time, I'm not very interested in getting involved.

-- 
Raul