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

Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]



Hi Dwarf, hi Philip

On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 09:21:15AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
> > If the validation suite works on a compliant system then,
> > by definition, any system that it doesn't work on will be non-compliant.
> 
> So any system that uses ``ash'' as it's /bin/sh is non-compliant ?
> 
> (I bring your attention to the == vs. = bug in the final equality test)
> 
> While this is a totally trivial example, it does show that the validation suit 
> can fail to work on a compliant system (unless you are going to tell me that
> the standard mandates bash as /bin/sh --- it doesn't does it ?)
> 
> > > bug in the script.  Say I find what I believe to be the bug, and I want a
> > > few people with known good systems to test the patched version to ensure
> > > that is still declares their systems sound --- I cannot do it with the
> > > current licence.
> > > 
> > Well, I agree that the letter of the copyright could be seen to forbit
> > this, but I wouldn't consider that "distribution" of the changes, unless
> > you passed them off as the standard without the authorization of the
> > committee.
> 
> Are you really doing the KDE thing here, and saying ``oh, yea, that might be 
> what the license says, but obviously we don't mean it'' ?
> 
> If you don't object to that sort of ``helpful redistribution'', you might as
> well use the GPL.
> 
>     GPL section 2 subsection a)
> 
>     You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>     stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> 
> Just emphasise that point in the copyright statement, with a clause like this:
> 
>   Any attempt to pass a modified version of this code off as the unmodified
>   LCS verification suit will be considered in violation of the licence.
>   See clause 2) subsection a) of the GPL.
>   Please ensure that there is not the slightest possibility of there being
>   any confusion on the part of someone receiving your modified version.
> 
> Also, you seem to think there are people out there that would actually use the 
> modifiability of the code to undermine the standard.  If that were the case, 
> they can do it as things stand, by just publishing a test suit of the same
> name, but of their own creation.
> 
> You would have no copyright control over their code, and since you don't own 
> ``LCS'' as a trademark or similar you cannot object (via the law) to people
> writing code that generates the output:
> 
>   This system is LCS compliant. Congratulations!
> 
> Anything you did do about this sort of thing, could also be done to anyone who 
> was disingenuous in their use of rights supposedly granted under the GPL.
> 
> This no-modification licence for the code is just not giving you the benefits
> that you are claiming (if you say ``no I'm not claiming that'', please 
> reiterate the benefit of using this licence, because I've obviously 
> misunderstood you).
> 
> N.B.  I'm still not suggesting that you should distribute the standard itself
>   under a ``modifiable'' license.  Allowing the public to distribute modified 
>   versions of the standard would be disaster.
> 
> The way I see it, this choice of licence reduces the maintainability of the 
> validation code.
> 
> It also makes you look bad, because you are representing Debian in this
> matter, but at the same time you are ignoring our Social Contract:
> 
>   2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
>   ...
> 
> Lastly, and I know this is an unlikely scenario, and I certainly wish you no 
> harm, but if you were killed in a plane crash just before fixing the last bug 
> in the verification suit, the current license would mean that we would have to 
> rewrite the whole thing from scratch, rather than just fix it.    [sorry, I 
> probably have a slightly sick way of looking at the world, but I think having 
> some of my code in wide use after my death would be quite a nice memorial]
> 
> Cheers, Phil.


A nice text, it summarize the big points.

I agree 100% with Phil.

It is not acceptable, that a official announce debian-redhat projekt produce
non-free software!


Grisu

-- 
Michael Bramer - a Debian Certified Linux Developer        http://www.debian.org
PGP: finger grisu@master.debian.org   --   Linux Sysadmin   --  Use Debian Linux
"A system without Perl is like a hockey game without a fight."  -- Mitch Wright

Attachment: pgpyPHWmzikts.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: