Date: 28 Nov 2001 16:50:35 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Looking for sendmail logfile analysis tool Message-ID: <gqlmgqs8mc.mgq@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011128122559.044e5790@localhost> References: <3.0.5.32.20011123162453.00bb86d0@199.107.2.1> <3.0.5.32.20011123162453.00bb86d0@199.107.2.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20011128122559.044e5790@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> writes: > I have been doing a great deal of work on log monitoring, and was > interested in working with this group until I discovered that all of > their output (including their DTDs) is GPLed. Alas, because the DTDs are > GPLed and no other documentation of their "DLF" file format is provided, > there is a serious risk of GPL contamination if one writes a program > which interoperates with theirs. Unless they agree to release their DTDs > under a truly free license, I'll have to implement something myself that > IS truly free. There aren't many that can resist the poisoned apple like that. Way to be. Makes me glad I switched from GNU/Linux last year. But if you ever decide that "free license" (truly or not) is too oxymoronic to use with a straight face, you might consider using the term "wide open license". It leaves room for mis-interpretation, but not much; "wide open" has some fuzz on it. Unfortunately, web page http://www.dspguru.com/wol2.htm claims that the capitalized form and acronym are trademarks. I think it's too descriptive to be a valid TM and the web page gives you the idea that it is not being properly used as a TM, but who wants to argue? Anyone got a similar term? Concerning GPL contamination via DTDs: If this is an old topic, excuse me; it's the first I've seen mention of it. I'm wondering how similar this is to GPL contamination via IDL source in the CORBA world. (GPL and GPL-incompatible programs communicating via CORBA, using Interface-Definition-Language-specified interfaces.) I'm pretty sure that RMS ruled IDL files basically uncopyrightable (unenforcable anyway) since there is basically only one way to specify the interface. (All variations would be essentially non-creative translations of each other. ?) See http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=berlin-design&m=93118897023514&w=2 where he reveals one of his principles with: However, using the GPL on IDL files might have a substantial practical effect even if it isn't legally airtight. He ends it with Words To Live By (TM): So the real question is, what result do you want? Anyway, are DTDs sufficiently like an interface to use similar arguments? (I think the argument depends on interfaceness, not just lack of creative variations, but I'm not sure.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gqlmgqs8mc.mgq>