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

Re: the RFC mess: tentative summary



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: pgpwKY4P9Ow5z.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: