Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

To: Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
From: bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:27:51 -0500
Message-id: <m24qulozw8.fsf@the-orb.evenmere.org>
In-reply-to: <m3y8rxzpei.fsf@ulysse.nibelungen.rez> (Mathieu Roy's message of "Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:06:45 +0100")
References: <20040124002939.GB8037@vinku.pingviini.net> <877jzhoq22.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <m3y8rxzpei.fsf@ulysse.nibelungen.rez>

Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> writes:

> For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom
> depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not
> programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify
> freely a standard like RFCs)

Nonsense.  You know well that there is no consensus on that -- and
there are several reasons to derive a new work from an RFC: new RFCs,
new standards for private use, guidelines on standards-based
programming for the Internet...

-Brian

Reply to:

References:
- Non-free package licenses and replacements
  - From: Niklas Vainio <niklas.vainio@iki.fi>
- Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
  - From: Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>

Prev by Date: debian-legal review of licenses
Next by Date: Re: debian-legal review of licenses
Previous by thread: Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
Next by thread: Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread