documentation

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, SamBC 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.

I'm not twisting anything.  The OSI has not concerned itself with
documentation licenses in the past.

If they must be addressed, they must be addressed, but affiliated
documentation should be under the same license as the software.

> > 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.

Off-list, could you point out to me where I started?

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

I don't think I've seen where you addressed how the copyright notice on
the GPL is not hypocritical.  Unless he agrees that it is OK for
licenses and software documentation to be held to different standards,
I don't see how we can progress to addressing to which standards his
document should be held.

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

Except actually addressing the relevant differences.  See *my* other
email.
-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 Research Systems Programmer
 mcweigel at cs.cmu.edu ne weigel at pitt.edu

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