Re: license distribution issues (was Re: Manoj, why are you suggesting to infringe the copyright law?)
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
>
> Raul> Now, this discussion grew out of the desire to include a
> Raul> variety of standards documents with Debian. But I feel it's
> Raul> important to note that it's possible to replace standards (for
> Raul> example, Unix98 can be thought of as a replacement for some
> Raul> POSIX standards),
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> That merely demonstrates that you do not know these standards. UNIX98
> goes way beyond POSIX. For example, POSIX does not know about select.
> UNIX98 does. In the threads domain, there are other considerations as
> well.
So?
UNIX98 can be replaced with a larger standard with some work by us,
the vendors. GPL can't.
> Raul> but it's not legal to replace license documents.
>
> Not at all. When you say a standard maybe replaced, you mean the the
> people following a standard may choose to follow anohter, or that the
> two standards produce similar requirements. Similarily, the author
> can choose to replace a license with another.
Only the author of the code can change the license. As people putting
together a distribution we can decide to adopt a new standard, and we
can patch packages where necessary so that they meet that standard.
Apples and oranges.
> In both cases, the owner of the entity chooses to adopt one standard,
> or the other; or use one license, or the other. The person who owns
> the software makes the decision; the vendors (us) can't in either
> case.
You're saying that we can't, for example, patch programs so that
they're FHS compliant?
> If DIGITAL UNIX follows POSIX; you can't just say, oh, well,
> they follow UNIX98, because thay would be a lie.
DIGITAL is an example of a vendor.
> Raul> I think that this means that these are two distinct issues.
>
> In the light of the above, I think you need to rethink this.
I don't follow your line of reasoning at all. Perhaps you could
spell things out a bit more clearly?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: