On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> I strongly disagree: the license is just saying that you can't
> publish a derivative work of SRFI X as SRFI X, and are otherwise free
> to derive works.
Could you step through your logic of that, without relying on the FAQ?
As near as I can parse it, I'm seeing:
this document itself may not be modified in any way, except as
needed for the purpose of developing SRFIs.
Now, if you want to claim that "this document itself" means merely the
copy in front of you, that's possible, but then this statement is a
no-op. It may be a flaw in my reasoning, but I can't reconcile this
statement with the explanation given in the FAQ.
> Looks like an ideal license for standards documents, really, which
> does everything this community has been asking for.
Not too bad, assuming you clear up the ambiguities we've hit on
already.
> I would think "assist in its implementation" would cover most
> software, but... yeah, it would be nicer if it were made more broad.
Yeah. Restrictions on modifications that don't cause an appreciable
increase in freedom are generally not a good thing.
Don Armstrong
--
"...Yet terrible as UNIX addiction is, there are worse fates. If UNIX
is the heroin of operating systems, then VMS is barbiturate addiction, the
Mac is MDMA, and MS-DOS is sniffing glue. (Windows is filling your sinuses
with lucite and letting it set.) You owe the Oracle a twelve-step program."
--The Usenet Oracle
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature