[Fwd: Debian TEI delay]

[Syd Bauman]

First, a quick review of where we are in this process.

* The problem is that TEI is inherently modifiable, so we can't just
  say "this is TEI, you can change it if you want, but then it's not
  TEI".

* The Council discussed this issue in May, and agreed in principle to
  go the free software route, while holding that only modifications
  made ala the chapter on modifying the Guidelines and thus DTDs that
  conform to the chapter on conformance would be allowed to still be
  called "TEI". The recommended way to do this was to use the GNU
  Free Documentation License, and hold the Conformance chapter as
  invariant.

* I suspected this wasn't permitted under the GFDL, so at the request
  of Council contacted the FSF to find out what, if anything, we
  could do.

* At the same meeting in May you pointed out an error in the wording
  of the Copyright that actually appears in the DTD (all of them? TEI
  Lite? Pizza Cheffed ones?), which was simply a mistake I had made,
  which I should have rectified but haven't. This change was not to
  make the DTD free as in free speech, but copyable w/o modification.

* The FSF responded to me in mid-December, providing a mechanism
  (dividing the chapter on Conformance into two chapters, one with
  the requirements for conformance where it is, and one in the
  front-matter that is invariant and says "if you don't follow the
  chapter on conformance *as published by TEIC, ..."), which I posted
  to the Council, to which only David responded. He thinks we can do
  it.

* Today, Mark Johnson (the current TEI Debian maintainer --
  self-appointed, btw) points out that Debian will only accept TEI
  into the "non-free" part of their package system due to the
  copyright restrictions.

* I was just starting to draft mail to Council suggesting that this
  issue be put on the agenda for Tuesday's conference call when I
  read Sebastian's mail to which this is a reply.

---------

> Board/Council members may wish to consider the attached message. I
> think we have taken our eyes off the ball with regard to licensing.

1. To what ever extent we've taken our eyes off the ball, I must take
   responsibility, for even if the ball's not currently in my court,
   it is, as it were, under my refereeship.

2. This is one of those few issues where it is not clear to me
   whether it is a Council issue (as it has to do with editorial
   changes to the TEI DTD and documentation) or a Board issue (as it
   has to do with strategic direction and accessibility of the TEI
   Guidelines). 

<p>> How many of those reading this would object if the copyright
> statetemt on the TEI DTDs and Schemas were changed to something
> very similar to what Docbook has? Which is as follows:

While I may very well agree, in the end, that this is the right way
to go, I am *strongly* against making any such change before
carefully thinking it through, and perhaps even consulting a lawyer
or expert in the field. Perhaps you (Sebastian) have been able to
consider the implications of this change, but I haven't (and it won't
surprise anyone on these lists that you think faster than I :-)

<p>> If we remove the phrase "and its accompanying documentation" to be
> on the safe side, does this not cover us?

But if we remove that phrase, then the Guidelines would still have to
be in the non-free set, no?

<p>> I for one feel quite strongly that we should let the open source
> philosophy win, and not be paranoid about variants poisoning the
> world.

I only want to be paranoid about variants that claim or seem to be
from or approved by TEI poisoning the world. Other variants should at
least be permitted, if not outright encouraged.

Furthermore, I am worried that including only a copyright notice like
the DocBook one fails to warn the user of the negative consequences
of direct modification of the schema, as opposed to extending it
properly. Of course, perhaps either the consequences are no longer as
problematic as they were, and perhaps we no longer care.

<p>In short, I would much prefer to see TEI spend 6 months in the
Non-Free section than to see us hastily make changes we may regret.