Re: AMQP license
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:04:43AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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 ...
Agreed, but it wasn't 100% clear to me that OP was simply asking
whether the specification itself as a text met the DFSG. If that was
the question then the answer is pretty straightforward: "no". It
doesn't allow you to modify the specification, let alone distribute a
modified version.
> > 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)!
Well, quite. But in the case of the RFC, the consensus seemed to be
that there was no problem including the program that implemented it in
main, provided the actual RFC text was removed from the source.
But in the case of an XML specification, perhaps implementation
inevitably involves including the text of the specification itself,
i.e. the XML code (unlike the RFC, which was just an English text
document). This is where I shrug and go, "But I'm not a programmer, so
I dunno". ;-)
John
(TINLA)
Reply to: