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

Re: the RFC mess: tentative summary


On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:17:50PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> >     Answer 1: Nobody asked the right to change the content of the file
> >       RFC23423.txt and distribute it as is. This would clearly be wrong and
> >       it would be ok to ask for a file rename, for a clear notice changes
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ask, yes. Require in the license, no. This was established during the
> LPPL dissection.
> Contrived example: I have an application that uses rfc23423.txt as
> input data (reading a table or something), and it is prohibitively
> difficult to change the filename it looks for.

Contrived, indeed. Especially since we should not create our criteria
for documentation and standards licenses to especially accomodate
non-free software that cannot be modified to accept a different file

Also, the clause is about appropriately identifying a file as such when
distributing a modified copy. No perverse combination of law and license
should be able prevent you from installing it on your own system under a
file name of your choice.



E-Advies - Emile van Bergen           emile@e-advies.nl      
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153           http://www.e-advies.nl    

Reply to: