Frank Küster wrote: > Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> wrote: > >> Frederic Lehobey wrote: >>> * License : GPL >> ... >>> doc-rfc: if you have installed this package (in non-free) you might >>> want to take advantage of the locally installed RFCs. >> Could you explain that bit about non-free ? > > Most RFCs do not allow modifications and are therefore non-free. OK. >> Is this a rewrite under a new licence? > > A rewrite of what? (the viewer). It's OK, it's clearer now. > I think there are a couple of free RFCs in Debian (and consequently on > the IETF website), so I think it will be usable with free data, too. > And anyway, even if nobody had already licensed any document in > Microsoft Word format under a DFSG-free license, a viewers for *doc > could still go to main. We won't package non-free data, but it's > perfectly acceptable to use free software to handle non-free data. Agreed. Just checking. :-) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature