Scripsit MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>I'm, quite sure that putting such things in a license makes it non-free.On 2004-02-12 17:45:39 +0000 Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>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.I don't think it needs to be done by copyright licences, but I'm not sure cautioning against it makes it non-free.
After this message, the discussion continued off-list. While we still disagree about whether you are misrepresenting the standard producer by placing things in a standard's XML namespace, or saying that elements in that namespace "mean" something else, I think we agree that:
1. Including a *notice* that you would regard such action as misreporting is DFSG-free;
2. Making vital copyright permissions *depend* on not taking such action is not DFSG-free, as misreporting is not a copyright matter.
I suggest that authors ask people to use another namespace for non-standard meanings and elements, and not to use "XML" to describe syntaxes that don't comply with the W3C XML recommendations. Again, they may not be required actions by a copyright licence.
Finally, I strongly believe that putting "This is my view and may differ from the original author's view. They do not endorse this." near the start of the document is not sufficient to excuse making statements about the original work that are individually false (such as "TEI:byline means start a new line").
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/