Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
>>"David" == David Welton <email@example.com> writes:
David> On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 01:03:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Sheer Hyprocrisy. It si OK to have the DFSG which is non-free
>> (no license to redistribute that I can see); it is OK to have most of
>> our software depend on a license that itself is non-free (taken a
>> look at the GPL lately?), but it is not OK for the LCS? How do you
>> justify that? We follow the FSSTND, which is also non-free. Explain
>> that one.
David> People have stated over and over and over that these things should be
David> under a license that says: "you may change this, but you must make it
David> clear that it is changed, and you cannot use the original title, or
David> even mention it". What are the problems with this?
Two things. This is like saying all software should be under
the GPL. There are lots of reasons for liking the GPL, just as there
are lots of reasons for liking modifiable standards. But we accept
non-GPL software in main, and we accept non modifiable standards in
main too (the DFSG, the social contract, the GPL (I know it is a
liicense, but the same reasons that apply tio standards apply to
software as well), the FSSTND, and others). Show me one reason for
practicing such hypocrisy.
We are not the authors. The authors decide on the license. We
do not tell them what to apply (we ask them nicely, and we do not
badger them when the demurr).
Love your neighbour, yet don't pull down your hedge. Benjamin
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E