Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
> The notion that
> standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of
> SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc.
IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they?
> No. Modification to the content must be allowed ... certainly not
> modification to the metadata.
I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly
is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG.
> You can't take package X from main,
> change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for
> packages in the public domain).
But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That
has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author
wrote.
> Whether something is really metadata is a matter of interpretation,
> and may depend on the specific case.
I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, except a specific
exception for name changes.
> Personally, I think all those people/organisations that want to
> protect the sancticity of their standard should just require
> derivative works to bear different names (or versions).
I agree. I'd also like to see people stop using these stupid patch
license and write-your-own-GPL licenses. But I don't see how that
matters.
--
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: