Re: language support

[Ronen Tzur <rtzur@shani.net>]

Hello!

> >About standards, that's something you put in paper for all to see and
> >implement, rather than something you code -- thus licenses are irrelevant.
> >Consider XFree for example:  an implementation of The Open Group's X11
> >standard, and licensed under the MIT license.
>
> True enough, but I usually don't consider something standard if it is
> changing too often (subjective, I know) or if it is standard just because
> someone published it, even though nobody else has acknowledged it.

I think you're right about that.

>  I could
> write a white paper or a sample implementation of some sort and get my
> bowling team to approve it, but I think it might be a bit much to call it a
> standard based on that. I guess I should have asked if it was a stable and
> well accepted standard.  Of course I thought that was the standard
> definition of a standard.
> :^)

You mean papers approved by your bowling team _aren't_ standards?
Damn, I was going to run something by you guys!  ;-)


But, the point I was trying to make is that non-GPL-covered programs may still 
be considered a standard in the GNU world.  Since that really has nothing to 
do with papers, maybe I shouldn't have said anything about papers...