Standards copyrights
On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 02:26:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"David" == David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> writes:
>
> David> On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 01:03:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava 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.
>
> David> People have stated over and over and over that these things should be
> David> under a license that says: "you may change this, but you must make it
> David> clear that it is changed, and you cannot use the original title, or
> David> even mention it". What are the problems with this?
>
> Two things. This is like saying all software should be under
> the GPL. There are lots of reasons for liking the GPL, just as there
> are lots of reasons for liking modifiable standards.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am apparently failing to communicate the idea. The *standard* is
immutable. It *cannot* change and still be the standard. However,
instead of saying that you cannot ever do anything with the standard,
you would have the ability to modify it to create some sort of 'other'
thing. The other thing, by definition, cannot be the standard. I
agree %100 that a standard must remain unified. I do not see how this
is really at odds with that idea.
> But we accept non-GPL software in main, and we accept non modifiable
> standards in main too (the DFSG, the social contract, the GPL (I
> know it is a liicense, but the same reasons that apply tio standards
> apply to software as well), the FSSTND, and others). Show me one
> reason for practicing such hypocrisy.
I think these things should be under a similiar license.
> We are not the authors. The authors decide on the license. We
> do not tell them what to apply (we ask them nicely, and we do not
> badger them when the demurr).
Right, but we do decide what can and cannot go into Debian.
Anyway, this is quickly getting absurd - most likely, no one will ever
want to modify a standard to something else...
Anyway... hrmph.. back to work:->
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Reply to: