documentation

[Matthew C Weigel]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:26 AM, 
sambc at nights.force9.co.uk wrote:

> I have to see that it's a matter of opinion. OSI Certification
> Mark applies only to software packages. Doesn't say anything that 
> OSI only cares about software full stop.

I guess we're reading it differently - "dedicated to . . . the OSD, 
specifically through the . . . certification mark. . . ."

> I have to say he seems to have misconceptions about simple 
> copyright statements and more complex licenses (IANAL) - however, 
> you reacted in entirely the wrong way, repeating yourself rather 
> than refuting his new points correctly.

Then please, help me out - since he apparently thinks I started 
mudslinging, and is ignoring me, say how *you* think he's wrong.
All I can think of to say is, it's obvious upon examination that 
licenses are not themselves free.

> I think you took things too personally. You should've looked at 
> his reasoning, seen it was wrong, and corrected it.

I tried.  "Hypocrite" is one of the few things I take seriously - 
and its use was not warranted.  Not for me, and not for the entire 
group of license-discuss participants.  If he'd called me a sicko 
communist pig-spanker, I'd be all sweetness and light.

As for his reasoning, I once again enjoin you to address its problems.

> Secondly, the OSI does not specify that only software *licenses* 
> are covered, merely that they only certify software products. You 
> are reading into that in a possibly incorrect way.

It says "open-source software must."  There is nothing to make 
anyone think that open-source documentation must or should pay any 
attention to it.  While I don't think it's intended to specifically 
exclude documentation, I think it *is* intended to specifically 
address software.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3