Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines
Scripsit MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
> On 2004-02-12 17:45:39 +0000 Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
> >> I meant that preventing TEI-incompatible and TEI-unauthorised
> >> elements from being in the TEI namespace seems fine to me.
> > Perhaps, but it is not DFSG-free.
> I don't think it needs to be done by copyright licences, but I'm not
> sure cautioning against it makes it non-free.
I'm, quite sure that putting such things in a license makes it non-free.
> >> Putting our own forms into TEI's namespace would be similar to
> >> claiming that they said something they did not.
> > No it isn't - not unless you *explicitly* claim that it was TEI who
> > said it.
> To me, that is exactly what abusing TEI's namespace does.
Then you're jumping to too quick conclusions.
> The XML Namespaces specification says: "The attribute's value, a URI
> reference, is the namespace name identifying the namespace. The
> namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the
> characteristics of uniqueness and persistence." (from section 2,
> definition 2)
Yes, but not everyone is following that. If you're threatening people
with lawsuits for copyright infringement if they as much as describe
such non-compliant use, you're way out in the non-free direction.
> If you put unauthorised things into the namespace of the TEI standard,
> then you are claiming that they are part of that standard,
No, I'm not. I'm simply describing how some software works.
> This would be explicitly misrepresenting TEI's view.
I wouldn't unless I claim to be representing TEI's view at all.
> > It is OK to say that one must make the derived text conspicously state
> > that it is not the original author's original specification. But it is
> > not OK to forbid me from speaking about things they don't like.
> While they ought not to forbid you from adding your own elements from
> your own namespace to the spec, or alternative fair descriptions of
> their elements, it seems OK to assert that you cannot claim TEI
> endorsement for your elements through namespace abuse.
Yes. But that is something entirely different from saying that I must
not describe namespace abuse at all, under threat of copyright
litigation.
> Many DFSG-free licences already caution licensees against
> fraudulently claiming the original author's endorsement.
And that is completely fine. What is not fine is saying that I must
not do anything that they would not endorse, even if I explicitly
state that they do not endorse it.
--
Henning Makholm "Han råber og skriger, vakler ud på kørebanen og
ind på fortorvet igen, hæver knytnæven mod en bil,
hilser overmådigt venligt på en mor med barn, bryder ud
i sang og stiller sig til sidst op og pisser i en port."
Reply to: