On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for > >> documentation than executables? > > > > I always go back to the technical standards when asked that. > > > > Clearly, if anyone can change a standard (without going through whatever is > > the revision procedure for that standard), it loses most of its most > > important characterstics. It is no longer capable of ensuring that all > > implementantions are based on common ground, for example. > > But that's covered by DFSG 4 - it would be acceptable for people to have > to rename modified versions. What if I base my fridge stock querying > system on IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to > modify the IMAP RFC. And indeed, specifications *must* be as free as the software they specify for precisely this reason. It is absolutely vital that when I change a piece of software, I can update the specification to match. This is the same as "Why free software needs free documentation". The situation with the RFCs is an unmitigated disaster, and we should not encourage it to continue by supporting them. Those documents should all have been released under free licenses, and they weren't. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature