Re: documentation x executable code
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for
> >> documentation than executables?
> >
> > I always go back to the technical standards when asked that.
> >
> > Clearly, if anyone can change a standard (without going through whatever is
> > the revision procedure for that standard), it loses most of its most
> > important characterstics. It is no longer capable of ensuring that all
> > implementantions are based on common ground, for example.
>
> But that's covered by DFSG 4 - it would be acceptable for people to have
> to rename modified versions. What if I base my fridge stock querying
> system on IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to
> modify the IMAP RFC.
actually, the easiest way would be to write a new RFC (or other document)
which referenced the IMAP RFCs.
"... except as described below, the protocol is the same as IMAP (note that it
requires a refridgerator or freezer of at least 80 litres capacity) ..."
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: