Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael Bramer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 06:02:20PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > > 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:
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> A thought:
> We (debian) make a program to validate a debian system. (for cd-roms to
> put 'official Debian CDRom' on the cover) Now we must write a new program.
You mean that the Debian program wishes to name itself validate, and my
program name conflicts with that? I will gladdly make the program name
LCS/LSB specific, like lsb-validate. But for that matter, Debian would be
better off naming theirs deb-validate, for the same reason.
I don't see how the copyright on this code stops Debian from doing what
you suggest.
> A sec. thought:
> I maintain X-Terms. On this Terms I check the files time to time. (with diff
> etc) With this program I can change my check program to a program like
> validate..
>
What is to stop you from doing this? Look, this "program" uses several
while loops to check files whose names are provided from a list. There is
nothing in my copyright that keeps you from doing something similar. I
don't suddenly "own" the while loop structures that I have used, only the
complete text is copyrightable.
> > 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.
>
> with this tarball the user or system admin is on the save side.
>
> > 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 can change the public pgp code! But this key is not usefull. Like the
> Program and the data-files from the lcs projekt.
> And I can change the keyring. I can remove keys and add keys and I have one
> usefull keyring.
But you can't change some particular developer's pgp key on that ring and
have the same ring. In fact, if you publish the keyring with developers
keys removed you have also done a disservice to the purpose of the
keyring. If anyone but myself has the power to change my key on that
keyring (I mean the actual key value, as well as the key object)
> If I like make a verify of a superset from the lcs files, I like to add new
> data entries to the data file and make a verify run...
While you are free to do that in the privacy of your own machine.
(Technically you may be violating the copyright law, but I don't see quite
how anyone would enforce it)
The problem comes when you distribute those changes, even under a
different name, you imply that it is as valid a standard as the one
LCS/LSB published. This is undesirable from the Standard's point of view.
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: