On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote: > In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that > a standards body officially approves the specification, which > would seem to translate to not allowing modified versions to > be distributed
It doesn't translate that to me at all. It translates into modified versions stating that they're modified. > It seems like they would fail, since it normally mandates > "modify+redistribute" rights for software. Absolutely. If I can't distribute a modified version, it's not free. > Is this an example > of documentation needing a different standard? Some claim so, but I haven't heard any convincing argument that wouldn't equally apply to software. > Or is there a way around the "official version" problem that makes > sense? Sure, don't call the modified version official. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>