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

Re: AMQP license

John Halton wrote:

>>> 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.

Sure, the program merely implements the specification, so the code
license rules if the spec is not included.

> 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". ;-)

Sometimes a great deal of text is included, for example to create a
stringprep library most coders would include the large text tables from
RFC 3454 (with or without some reformatting).

Sometimes a snippet of text is included or a protocol example is
included -- think "literate programming".

Typically I think there is no need to include the entire specification
in a code library if all you are doing is coding to the spec (e.g. you
can just point to the canonical location for the spec). But still it
would be nice for the spec to have a license that enables a coder to
include it if desired (something we are still working on in the Jabber


Peter Saint-Andre

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply to: