Re: SUMO license
Jim,
I mean any alteration, like changing a subclass link, or another
axiom. In fact, that's precisely what we've been doing all these years
working on SUMO. We make lots of changes, and then propose a new version
to the list to vote on as the new baseline. Plenty of SUMO users,
including folks like Philippe Martin have altered SUMO by changing class
links and, in his case, removing all the axioms. He should probably be
clearer that his work is simply derived from merging portions SUMO, and
explain more fully how it was merged and amended, but surely there's no
reason he should be legally prevented from doing so, now or in the
future. He can't, and shouldn't claim conformance. I think his effort is
misguided, but he should be legally free to "build a better mousetrap" if
he thinks he can. Whether his version becomes more popular with the SUO
group, is up to a vote of the community.
Adam
At 07:31 AM 6/13/2004 -0400, jim.s3@JUNO.COM wrote:
>SUMO,
>
> Adam and are started a discussion on licensing, which we're bring
>into this list.
>
> Adam, what do you mean by "altering the standard?" Changing the
>starter document? Changing the browser? Changing some form of
>implementation? Could you give us some examples?
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>--------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Adam Pease <adampease@earthlink.net>
>To: jim.s3@juno.com,aterry@teknowledge.com
>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:54:20 -0700
>Subject: Re: SUMO license
>
>Jim,
> I'm happy to move this discussion to the list. As you note, anyone
>should be able to build a better lightbulb. No one should be able to
>claim
>conformance if they alter the standard, but they shouldn't be prevented
>from altering the standard and noting that they've done so.
>
>Adam