Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> > Chris Lawrence <lawrencc@debian.org> writes:
>
> >> Personally I'd hate to see useful things like the RFC and W3
> >> documentation packages go away, and it's still helpful in an advocacy
> >> role to be able to point people at non-free for qmail and pine, even
> >> though I'll still say "Postfix" and "mutt"(*) at them too.
>
> > Why do you think that RFC's are non-free?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/92810
> cu andreas
Hrm. I think we should ask the RFC editors for a minor change, which
would permit modified versions provided they are clearly identified as
not the RFC.
Reply to: