On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:12:21PM +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote: > If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would > have thought it was essential that such things, which define the > standards we all use, should be protected from unauthorised amendments. In which case a license of "if you change this you may not represent it as RFCn" would be acceptable, no? -- Mike Stone