[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SRFI copyright license



On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: 
> The license clearly allows you to derive works, as long as you do not
> change the SRFI itself. 

The above sentence is in conflict with itself. A deriviative work must
necessarily change the SRFI itself. The end product might not be an
SRFI anymore, but the starting point is.

It's as much in conflict as the following: "Here is a piece of code.
You can modify it, but you must not change it."

This is, in a nutshell, the entire problem with this license. It gives
with one hand, and then takes with the other, leaving the exact amount
taken open to interpretation in court.

> Well, calling a derivative work of SRFI 86 "SRFI 86", or otherwise
> making something that appears to be a modified SRFI 86 would probably
> count.  I can't see anything else as forbidden.

I agree that is quite likely what they mean, but that's not what the
license says, at least at a conservative reading. One would have hoped
that the presence of a FAQ about this section would have alerted the
license authors that this section of the license was extreemly
unclear.

> Is your real problem, Don, the vagueness of the identity problem for 
> documents?  When is one document the same as another?  When is one a 
> modification of another, and not a separate document?

That's part and parcel of the issue. If the license clarified when a
derivation ceased to be the "document itself" and became a totally
different document, this license might possibly become acceptable, but
they fail to do that. [Frankly, I'd much rather see this section
rewritten along the lines I proposed earlier in this thread than
definition clarification.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of
entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public
attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle
had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had
manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence
Point.

-- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: