On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > 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. It's not non-free, it's just crap. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpP3BejGB37e.pgp
Description: PGP signature