SamBC sambc at
Thu Aug 30 20:38:02 UTC 2001

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:weigel+ at]
> Sent: 29 August 2001 21:44
> 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.

"No guide to future growth" as the ad disclaimer here in the UK says...

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

I wholly agree with that.

> > > 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?

I would, but I seem to have a gap in my mail archive (I appear to have once
deleted when I meant to archive) and I am a little busy to look through the
web archive at the moment. I could've been wrong but it was the impression I

> > > 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.

I have pointed out that it is based on a faulty understanding and confusion
between the differences between a copyright statement with a permission
granted, and a more complex license.

> > 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.

But the principles can be easily translated, is my point. :o)


license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list