From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2007 - 07:25:18 CST
De la part de vunzndi@vfemail.net
>, BOCU-1 spec can itself be made the
> subject of a GPL, this would not free IBMs patents in non BOCU-1 spec
> cases and would make it eligable for consideration for acceptance; It
> would then be possible to both implemnt and continue development of
> BOCU-1 spec as required without fear. Without such a freeing up BOCU-1
> itself would seem to be too dangerous.
Hmmm, I doubt that ISO or Unicode would accept a GPL licence on BOCU-1,
because this would add restrictions that do not exist in the ICU licence:
the viral effect of the GPL would prohibit the use of BOCU-1 in software
that are licensed with GPL-incompatible licences.
For example, the BOCU-1 algorithm could not be licenced for use in the
Windows implementation (unless Microsoft asks IBM for another commercial
licence allowing distribution without the GPL constraint.
On the opposite, Windows and Office contains lots of components that are
licensed under non-GPL open-source licences like BSD licence, X licence...
This is noted in the "about" box of the affected software components and in
its copyright notices.
But anyway, Unicode or ISO do not publish software in their standard, they
publish documentation. But if we use a GPL-like licence for the
documentation, the GFDL licence would be more appropriate, but it is still
not open-enough because this documentation is exactly what completely
describes a licensed technology, and with which implementations are then
possible. A GFDL licence for the BOCU-1 specification would not fit for ISO
and Unicode standards, also because of the "viral" incompatibility (there
are lots of technologies published by ISO that are covered by patents and
require licencing but are then incompatible with licences of the GPL family,
unless those products are completely separated (but this makes
implementation using those separate documentations difficult to integrate).
If you can cite some technologies documented by ISO that uses a copyleft
licence for their documentation and implementations, it would be interesting
to note. From what I have seen, there may be only separate optional annexes
containing such sources, but there are NOT required for conformance.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 21 2007 - 07:29:56 CST