Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bramer wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > Today I have read the first time from the lcs projekt.
> >
> > After that I subcrib the lcp-en mailing list and found a eMail from
> > Dale Scheetz. In this eMail he send program code this a copyright.
> > I have ask him, to change the copyright to a DFSG-free copyright.
> >
> > This is the answer:
>
> It is impolite to copy a private email to a public forum, without
> permission from the author (Dale).
>
> Having said that, this is eerily like the discussion we are having on
> -policy at the moment about standards documents.
>
> I can't quite agree with Dale's approach on this.
>
> IMHO, the 'validate' program should be modifiable, but should have a
> clause dictating that any modified version must be distributed under a
> different name, and clearly marked as such.
And just what purpose would this "new" forked version serve? Validate a
different standard? Do some other job instead?
What "useful algorithm" am I keeping out of the hands of the rest of the
community by not allowing modification? The major portion of this package,
which is not visible in the script I published are the files containing
the lists of objects being checked. Change one character in any of these
lists and the validation proceedure will no longer be useful.
This is a piece of software that serves a specific, narrow, purpose.
Allowing it to be modified only dilutes the strength of the test and the
standard.
>
> Furthermore, the LCS team could have on their websites the sizes and
> md5sums of 'validate' (and any other scripts, and documents, which have
> similar issues attached to them). This means that it is possible to
> verify a given copy of 'validate' as being correct, buyt still distribute
> it as free software.
>
This is already the plan. The tarball of the validation suite will be
found along with a README.lcs-validate that will give the md5 sum for the
tarball to ensure the proper result.
> Dale: Would this not be appropriate?
>
It only serves the letter of the Free Software ideal, not the spirit. I
don't see a single advantage to allowing modifiability, and several
disadvantages to doing so.
I know that technically this is software, but I suggest that it is far
more like a pgp key. Do you see any advantage in being able to change the
contents of the developers keyring? Is there any reason why it should be
DFSG compliant? I see this validation suite as serving the same purpose.
It can't serve that purpose and be totally free in the DFSG terms.
I am a firm supporter of the DFSG. I just don't think their purpose is
best served by making this suite compliant.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: