Re: License for Standards Spec?
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
> In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that
> a standards body officially approves the specification, which
> would seem to translate to not allowing modified versions to
> be distributed
It doesn't translate that to me at all. It translates into modified
versions stating that they're modified.
> It seems like they would fail, since it normally mandates
> "modify+redistribute" rights for software.
Absolutely. If I can't distribute a modified version, it's not free.
> Is this an example
> of documentation needing a different standard?
Some claim so, but I haven't heard any convincing argument that wouldn't
equally apply to software.
> Or is there a way around the "official version" problem that makes
> sense?
Sure, don't call the modified version official.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: