Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [email@example.com: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> 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.
Raul> (1) LCS is a technical document, not a legal document
Raul> (2) GPL is a legal document, not a technical document
There seems no reason that a legal document can't be put under
a rename-and-distinguish-is-you-change-a-letter clause. All the
reasons for liking a mutable standard apply to a mutable license
(NPL, AbiPL, and other licenses trying to be open-source are an
indication that derived licenses are also needed). Want me to give
chapter and verse on the arguments presented for standards, and to
point out how thay all apply to licenses as well? I have done so
already on the -policy list; I can do so here.
Raul> However, you're right in that we really ought to have a better
Raul> description of what we need, and why.
The FSSTND is not a legal document. The social contract is not
a legal document. The DFSG is not a legal document.
We also follow these other non-legal non free standards, with
nary a complaint: ISO/ANSI C, ISO/ANSI POSIX, We try to follow UNIX 98
We need to get consistent, as you say.
What matters is not the length of the wand, but the magic in the
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