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

Re: AMQP license

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:48:42 +0000 John Halton wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:36:53AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that the original question was more about the DFSG-freeness
> > of the AMQP specification itself, rather than about the possibility
> > of developing DFSG-free programs which follow the specification...
> I'm not sure how one would apply the DFSG to a specification as such.

Well, the specification is a document (right?).
A document is a copyright{ed|able} work and hence (with the current sad
laws) does not comply with the DFSG, unless it is released under the
terms of a license which is permissive enough.
Is the license included in the original message permissive enough?

I think the original question can be rephrased as above...
At least, that is how I read it.

For instance: from a quick glance, I couldn't find any permission to
distribute modified versions of the specification (even under a
different name).
If there's no such permission, then the specification fails
DFSG#3/DFSG#4 ...

> If implementation of the specification would require the spec. itself
> to be incorporated into the relevant package then the inability to
> modify the spec. clearly makes it non-free.
> OTOH, if it is just a case of making a program that meets the spec.,
> and the program itself is free and does not contain the spec. itself,
> then I don't see that's a problem. (See the recent discussion here
> concerning a program that implemented a non-free RFC.)

Unless you want to distribute the specification itself (in main)!

I know you all remember that, but anyway:

 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpRGvT4HZIc7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: