simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)

[SamBC]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave J Woolley" <david.woolley at bts.co.uk>


> > From: SamBC [SMTP:sambc at nights.force9.co.uk]
> >
> > http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
> >
> > Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls
> >
> [DJW:]  The HTML is invalid, although it makes an
> exceptionally good attempt to use elements for their
> intended purpose (possibly top 2 percentile in that
> respect!).

Really??? What was wrong with it - I did it all by hand, so I thought it
wouldn't have any weirdness....

>
> "Transparent Media/Format" - Any format/media of storage in which the text
> and graphics are machine-readable and editable, using programs which are
> available both free of charge and free from restrictions of use (eg HTML,
> plain ASCII text, XML where the document data type is 'free').
>
> You mean document type defintion, not document data type.  A
> "free" DTD is not sufficient as DTDs only define the
> mechanically checkable syntax rules not the semantics.
> There is an alternative, called schemas, that goes a lot
> more towards semantics, but I've still to read up on them.
> With a DTD, it might be possible to make Word 2000 "HTML"
> comply with this example.

I'm glad someone picked that up - if I re-read thoroughly I'd've noticed
too... thing is the literal conditions set the actual conditions, the
examples ought'n't to be legally binding (IANAL though so I will sort it
when I get back online)

>
> HTML is too loose.  Often people mean a combination of the
> tags from published HTML DTDs with proprietory tags (often
> in an order that cannot possibly be described by a DTD or is
> not descibed by the one they claim), with GIFs, JPEGs,
> Javascript and styles sheets.  Many may even include Flash and
> other ActiveX components.

Again, that is covered by the actual conditions rather than the examples - I
will clarify it.

>
> People may consider Word 2000 "HTML" (even though it is really
> XML and requires Word to edit sensibly) as HTML.

Then they will be in the wrong according to the license

>
> Particularly if you include proprietory elements, you need
> commercial browsers, which have export restrictions with respect
> to about half a dozen countries.

What is the version number for 'current' w3c standard HTML? I will specify
that as the example when I find out.

> The HTML document may well be auto-generated and not the true
> revisable form document.

Still transparent though - that is the condition, rather than the original
form being required. You think I should speify original form?

> The examples exclude much more open SGML document types than
> HTML, like docbook.

Always forget the best ones :o)

>
> The images associated with HTML may well not be the revisable form
> (as well as the GIF patent problem).  The revisable form may
> contain layers or may be in a vector drawing format.

But then, a form may still be transparent and editable without being the
*original* - even if the original had layers, you can still edit it without
them.


All good points, though, I will make some changes, but you won't see them on
the site for some time


SamBC

>
>
> --
> --------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
>
>