Note: I'm not a debian developer, but I have an interest in licensing issues
and monitor this list. And for once I have a few things to throw into a
discussion...
Ossama Othman [othman@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu] wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> >
> > People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> > If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
>
> ... I can't imagine why anyone would want to deviate from the standard and
> begin yet another development fork....
It's called "embrace and extend", and a certain company from Redmond has shown
the world that it is very effective. If you think it won't happen here, see
the Halloween documents.
> > [*] If the standard is good enough, people will not want to use a program
> > that does not conform to the standard, so there is no need to write that
> > in the license....
This argument is true for users that care about standards, but there are a whole
lot of people who care more about what companies like the one mentioned above
tell them they should use.
I saw Sun's name mentioned in this discussion, and with the recent lawsuit
between Sun and MS over breaking/changing the Java standards I can certainly
understand them caring about enforcing standards compliance. I understand the
sentiment that this makes it non-free, but this is a serious concern that
could use some serious discussion beyond "the license isn't free enough".
Just my .01.
--
Jeremy Blosser | jblosser@firinn.org | http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"Would you fight to the death, for that which you love?
In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?"
-- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_
Attachment:
pgp4lp6tvCAKJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature