Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 01:03:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Michael" == Michael Bramer <michael@weh.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
Michael> It is not acceptable, that a official announce debian-redhat
Michael> projekt produce non-free software!
>> Sheer Hyprocrisy.
Anthony> It is, isn't it? Imagine, a project to produce a completely free OS,
Anthony> defining that OS by using non free programs.
A program does not define the OS. A standard does. And the
standard can not be held to the same criterion as software is -- the
reasons behind the requirements do not apply.
Anthony> And the LCS is, at the moment, free to put it's
Anthony> documentation under a non-free license, and have it in main.
Verbatim, I thought we are leaning towards.
Anthony> But ./validate isn't a document. It's a program. Its sole
Anthony> purpose is to get run.
I see nothing that states that stadards can't have code as
part of the standard. In fact, several standards actually do. (POSIX
1003.2 validation suite is an immutable international standard).
./lcs-validate is part of the standard. As such, rules
governing the standard govern the program.
Anthony> Therefore it's software, and therefore the DFSG applies.
And here is where we differ. I see the program as an
inseparateable part of the standard, and you don't.
Anthony> Saying that it's not really software, it's really a standard seems to
Anthony> be pointless sophistry to me.
Sorry. I guess ISO/IEC standards that include code have been
too familair for me to think of standards having code and code
snippets as pointless sophistry.
Anthony> After all, aren't the KDE/Qt folks trying to create a
Anthony> standard in their work on the desktop? It's not a bad
Anthony> standard, and even better it's not exclusionary with other
Anthony> possible desktop standards, so maybe Debian should support
Anthony> it -- after all, if Qt is a standard not software we
Anthony> shouldn't have any qualms whatsoever about putting it in
Anthony> main, right?
*Sigh*. A single person or group adopting policy and rules do
not a standard make. And a validation suite for a standard is not the
implementation library for the API.
If you really can't tell the cases apart, I guess it is
pointless arguing with you, since our positions are too far apart.
Anthony> But, rhetoric aside, I thought ./validate wasn't meant to be
Anthony> the standard anyway -- that the LCS was all about making a
Anthony> paper standard that anyone could fulfill.
If that is indeed true, then the DFSG should apply.
Anthony> Honestly, I don't see why this is still an issue, let alone
Anthony> an emotive one. We've already decided that philosophically,
Anthony> we prefer a free solution over a non-free one where it's
Anthony> possible, and practically, there still seems to be a means
Anthony> of legal recourse, and still getting any benefits that the
Anthony> free software community may be wishing to add.
The decisive word is *software*. We are still in the process
of making up our minds about what is or is not acceptable when it
comes to other things, for example, graphic novels, freely
distributable with no modfication permitted (I really don't see a
clear and incisive benefit from modifying a comic book or Melvilles
"Two Yearsa before the Mast".)
manoj
--
``Once again, we see that interesting correlation between saying
"Blessed Be!" and being an idiot.'' Gene W. Smith, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.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
Reply to: