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