On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:48:42 +0000 John Halton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:36:53AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that the original question was more about the DFSG-freeness
> > of the AMQP specification itself, rather than about the possibility
> > of developing DFSG-free programs which follow the specification...
>
> I'm not sure how one would apply the DFSG to a specification as such.
Well, the specification is a document (right?).
A document is a copyright{ed|able} work and hence (with the current sad
laws) does not comply with the DFSG, unless it is released under the
terms of a license which is permissive enough.
Is the license included in the original message permissive enough?
I think the original question can be rephrased as above...
At least, that is how I read it.
For instance: from a quick glance, I couldn't find any permission to
distribute modified versions of the specification (even under a
different name).
If there's no such permission, then the specification fails
DFSG#3/DFSG#4 ...
> If implementation of the specification would require the spec. itself
> to be incorporated into the relevant package then the inability to
> modify the spec. clearly makes it non-free.
>
> OTOH, if it is just a case of making a program that meets the spec.,
> and the program itself is free and does not contain the spec. itself,
> then I don't see that's a problem. (See the recent discussion here
> concerning a program that implemented a non-free RFC.)
Unless you want to distribute the specification itself (in main)!
I know you all remember that, but anyway:
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgps38SXSPcfz.pgp
Description: PGP signature