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

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: