Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines
Scripsit MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
> On 2004-02-12 00:17:52 +0000 Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
> > I think you're wrong. One should be allowed to derive a document that
> > described the official TEI elements as well as Microsoft's
> > (hypothetical) namespace-invacing extension.
(oops, meaning-disturbing typo: should be "invading").
> I meant that preventing TEI-incompatible and TEI-unauthorised
> elements from being in the TEI namespace seems fine to me.
Perhaps, but it is not DFSG-free.
> Putting our own forms into TEI's namespace would be similar to
> claiming that they said something they did not.
No it isn't - not unless you *explicitly* claim that it was TEI who
said it.
> I think you are correct to insist that derived versions including true
> descriptions of elements already approved by TEI, in the TEI
> namespace, should be possible.
No: What instist is that it should be possible to use the original
document to derive descriptions of uses of the TEI namespace that TEI
has *not* approved. I also insist that it should be possible for
derived version to include false, flawed and misleading descriptions
of just about anyting within or out of the TEI namespace - as long as
the derived document does not claim to be the original.
It is OK to say that one must make the derived text conspicously state
that it is not the original author's original specification. But it is
not OK to forbid me from speaking about things they don't like.
--
Henning Makholm "They want to be natural, the anti-social
little beasts. They just don't realize that
everyone's good depends on everyone's cooperation."
Reply to: