[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal



Thomas,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:03:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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.

iWhy does the mountain have to go to the prophet? I think it is time for
some Debian Free Documentation Guidelines, which actually know about the
special requirements for documentation (Interesting question: Is the GNU
FDL DFSG free?). Currently I can think of the following issues:

 - invariant sections (FDL)
 - front/back cover texts (FDL)
 - modifications having to go through the author or some organisation
   (standards)
 - non-availablity of the source in the author's preferred form
   (standards)
 - patent issues on standards

Basically I'd like to see documentation under the FDL (and similar
licenses) and standards that are freely distributable and not encumbered
by some patent in main.

   Simon

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD  ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4

Attachment: pgpI6UIwRQnsv.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: