[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates



On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:31:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:

Some truly insignificant comments.  

> 
> mpg123                    MPEG layer 1/2/3 audio player
> 
> 	This has a hand-rolled license.  Is there a freely-licensed MP3
> 	player available?  I am aware of the patent issues but view them
> 	with scorn.

Try mpg321, now in unstable.  It doesn't do everything that mpg123
does, but they are working on it.  

> wdg-html-reference        WDGs HTML 3.2, HTML 4, and CSS references
> 
> 	It is my opinion that standards documents should be freely
> 	licensed, and Debian should probably try to convince the W3C to do
> 	so.

First, those aren't the specs.  The specs are all available at the W3C
website, under the license described here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents 
and explained by the FAQ here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ.html#Documents 

This license is very non-free, however, the odds of that ever changing
are zero, and I have to say I agree with them.  You wouldn't want
someone else publishing a "revised" version of their standards, since
that would defeat the purpose of the standard.  Even if they called it
something different, there would still be a problem.  

As an example of why this is sometimes true, and accepted by all those
we hold high and mighty ( :-) I offer the license of the GPL (which is
in main, despite having a much more restrictive license than some of
the things in non-free).  

Really, I don't want to start a flamewar on this.  But I don't think
that trying to convince the W3C to relicense their specs is a
worthwhile use of our time.  
           
	sam th		     
	sam@uchicago.edu
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
	GnuPG Key:  
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key

Attachment: pgpyri2GmdJlt.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: