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 standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of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
> 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
David Starner - email@example.com
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