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

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 08:55:45PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well?
> Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention.
> > AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict
> > the right of making modifications to parts of the documentation. Is
> > that non-free, too???
> There is no such thing. If you meant the GNU Free Documentation
> License, that one allows non-modification clauses only for non-topical
> chapters. So I think it is ok with DFSG.

If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for
standards? A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date
than a standard, which by design is intended to be eternally fixed.
In any case, the DFSG offers exceptions for neither, so the 
non-modification clause in the GNU FDL is not _okay_ with the DFSG.
By the strict reading of the DFSG, if it is to apply to documentation
and RFC's, modificiation must be allowed.

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Reply to: