Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Andreas Metzler <email@example.com> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Chris Lawrence <email@example.com> writes:
> >> Personally I'd hate to see useful things like the RFC and W3
> >> documentation packages go away, and it's still helpful in an advocacy
> >> role to be able to point people at non-free for qmail and pine, even
> >> though I'll still say "Postfix" and "mutt"(*) at them too.
> > Why do you think that RFC's are non-free?
> cu andreas
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.