Re: the RFC mess: tentative summary
Hi,
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
name.
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.
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Reply to: