Matthew C Weigel
weigel at pitt.edu
Tue Aug 28 16:57:45 UTC 2001
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
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss