documentation

[SamBC]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew C Weigel [mailto:weigel at pitt.edu]
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:26 AM,
> sambc at nights.force9.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> I guess we're reading it differently - "dedicated to . . . the OSD,
> specifically through the . . . certification mark. . . ."

You can always twist meanings that way. Proves nothing other than, as you
say, we read it differently.

> 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.

Well, you did start the mudslinging, but not entirely inappropriately IMHO.
You just both calm down, be mature, and forgive each other. It seems the
points have mostly been cleared up.

> 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.

I think you took it too personally. He didn't mean you, he meant the whole
principle, and but for one misconception was justified. Let it go, I say.

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

I think I have.

> > 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.

as I say in another email, obvious rewording sorts out all the probs I can
see...


SamBC

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3