Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
Hi,
>>"Michael" == Michael Bramer <grisu@debian.org> writes:
Michael> Today I have read the first time from the lcs projekt.
Michael> After that I subcrib the lcp-en mailing list and found a eMail from
Michael> Dale Scheetz. In this eMail he send program code this a copyright.
Michael> I have ask him, to change the copyright to a DFSG-free copyright.
Michael> This is the answer:
Why are you posting a private reply? Did you ask permission?
If you did, you should note that in your message.
I think I agree with Dale: since a verification program
certifies a disrtibution, a modified certification program can allow
a non-conforming distribution to lie about it an pretend they are
qualified.
I shall quote from one of my messages on the -policy list.
manoj
The bottom line with standards is that people have to accept it -- and
the degree of coperation and synergy that develops when one can depend
on third party code since everyone is playing by the same rules. You
lose all that as soon as people start tweaking the rules around. You
lose interoperability, and trust in the standard, which makes it hard
for the standard to be used for the purpose it was intended.
I think that mutable strandards are an anathema: supporting a plethora
of modified almost standards dilutes the benefits of a standard, the
strength of a standard lies in the fact that *everyone* follows the
same document.
Standards are modified by the standards body, not by any tom dick, or
harry that comes along. How would things be if Debian modifies the
FHS, and so does Red Hat, and caldera an so. We all have our own FHS,
and now none of the distributions are using compatible file layouts.
Just look at what happens when standards are not immutable: MS
embracing java, and then extending it, and essentially breaking the
write once, run anywhere promise of the standard. Modifying standards,
in my opinion, hurts the software community worse than proprietary,
non free software does. It divides us, and lowers the efficacy of the
standardizing effort.
Standards are not improved by generating a gazilion sets of documents,
confusing what exactly the standard says, and then converging the
standard back. Standards bodies *do* look at non-conformant
implemntations and applications, and use prior art to amend or enhance
the next version; but never have I heard any standards body taking in
an bastardized version and incorporating it into the next standard.
As the community benefits from the wide dissemination and use of
standards, which allows authors to synergistically build upon each
others works, and the community suffers from the spread of a subtly or
drastically different copies of what purports to be a standards
dcument, I think we should actually frown on mutable standards.
So, I oppose penalizing standards documents that prohibit change in
content. I guess translations, or format changes, should be
acceptable.
--
You will be audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
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: