> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
