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 Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 11:03:50AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Several of my prevoius posting to the list have been bouncing. The Debian
> > list server is bouncing mail from nexus.polaris.net (which was the mail
> > server I have been using), so I have switched to a different server to see
> > if I can get back to the lists. Those who got only the reply I sent
> > directly to them may repost it to the list if they wish.
>
> debian have a dns-Problem... See -privat
>
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 10:23:02PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > > > I'd assumed the code was just an implementation of the standard.
> > > > >
> > > > None of you even bothered to look at the code that the copyright covers,
> > > > did you?
> > > >
> > > > The "code" under copyright is four (five? ;-) while loops, that read lines
> > > > from particular files and check to see that the items from the list are
> > > > found on the current system. If any fail, a message posts the line from
> > > > the file and flips the flag. The final message is based on which way the
> > > > flag is flipped. I freely release this algorithm to the world, for
> > > > whatever that is worth ;-)
> > >
> > > What is with: ./lcs-libtest
> > > (BTW: is the pathname in the program right?)
> >
> > You are the first person to ask this, congratulations!
> >
> > I posted comments about this in a recent posting, but I'm not sure that it
> > made it to the lists.
>
> No. I haven't read this...
>
> > This program (lcs-libtest) will run C code test routine against the
> > various libraries that the LSB specifies.
> >
> > It is my intention to release these test routines in a different code
> > framework, as version 2.0, under the GPL. These routines will have a
> > broader usefulness outside the standards testing programs, and will not
> > change the standard if they are modified.
>
> I don't understand..
That is clear ;-)
> The code is:
> # Test library functionality
>
> if [ -x ./lcs-libtest ]
> then
> ./lcs-libtest
> if ! [ ? == 0 ]
> then
> SUCCESS=FALSE
> fi
> fi
>
> If I change the code of lcs-libtest, that can change the result from validate!
> What is the difference between changes in validate and changes in lcs-libtest.
>
lcs-libctest will remain under the restrictive copyright. As I said, I
intend to make another release of the test code that lcs-libtest uses,
within a different set of driver code. This will be a distinct and
isolated product from the LSB validation code, and, as such, can be
released under a different license.
As I have said, it is not my intent to restrict useful code from
development as Free Software. The intent is only to clearly identify the
standard in a way that can not change without the standard committee's
authorization.
> > > Code like:
> > > michael@titanic:~ > cat /usr/bin/which
> > > #!/bin/bash
> > > unalias -a
> > > unset -- "$@" &> /dev/null
> > > enable -n -- "$@" &> /dev/null
> > > type -p "$@"
> > > must DFSG-free too!
> > >
> > > Or not?
> >
> > It may certainly have a copyright by its author. DFSG free is only a
> > requirement of Debian, not the world. Many other distributions would/could
> > use this code, even with a fairly restrictive license, not that such a
> > license would have much value.
>
> This is right. But if the Software (and it is Software) is not DFSG free. it
> can't go to main or contrib. And the result is: no 'normal' debian user can
> check the system!
While what you say about the software not going into main is correct, and
expected, the rest is nonsense.
Debian is not the only access our users have to the world at large. This
software will be eminently available even if Debian refuses to recognize
its existance. Only Debian suffers from being this narrow minded.
> Make the copyright DFSG free, make yourself the debian package and all our
> users can check the conform of the system!
And anyone else can modify the package and re-release it (with the
restrictions that are allowed this may be as another package name, but
that doesn't change the fact that it is "derived" in this case from the
"standard", which is very undesirable.)
You have ceased to be reasonable here. Debian is not the world. It isn't
even a large part of it. Debian can not restrict users of Debian software
from running proprietary code. THAT would go against the DFSG for sure!
You are acting like the whole system will be irevocably dammaged by this
code being non-free, which is simply not true.
>
> Please.
>
Thank you, but no.
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: