Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <6avn1bF37depaU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> bbgruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > In article <rtqoh5-ms5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
>> >
>> > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?
>>
>> That's not really a sensible question, is it?
>> If RAND qualifies as GPL, then your question is possibly a valid one.
>>
>> I can see that GPL qualifies as RAND.
>> Are you claiming that RAND qualifies as GPL?
>
> RAND is a set of conditions that a license must satisfy. Mark, and some
> others, seem to be confused and think that RAND *is* a license. Hence,
> if a standards body requires that standards be made available under a
> RAND license, these people think that means the standard is
> automatically incompatible with free software.
>
> Nearly every free software license meets the conditions of RAND, and is
> therefore a RAND license. Whether a given RAND license is compatible
> with free software or not depends on the particular license the owner of
> that thing chooses to use.
Absolutely, and thank you Tim:-)
GPL *must* be RAND.
RAND may or may not be compatible with GPL - and hence people's concern, in
that RAND sounds good, but often doesn't cut it as far as GPL is concerned.
|
|
