Thomas Bushnell wrote: > 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. Good idea. Not sure if it's practical retroactively to get a license change given that eg, Postel is dead. But.. Simon Richter wrote: > iWhy does the mountain have to go to the prophet? I think it is time for > some Debian Free Documentation Guidelines, which actually know about the > special requirements for documentation I think it's interesting that even in the context of a thread on removing our mostly useless non-free section -- which proves how effective is our policy WRT what is free enough for debian -- there is still agitation to dilute that policy for documentation. Such a dual standard.. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpstDzT9mXIp.pgp
Description: PGP signature