Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. We don't require the freedom that modified software can be passed off as the original, and nor do we require the freedom that modified technical standards should be passed off as the original. But we should require that technical standards be modified. The argument fails to stand up anyway. I can write a description of how SMTP works by reverse engineering exim. My standard will deviate from the RFC, but I could still claim that this was how SMTP worked. Microsoft could do the same. Despite this, for the most part people agree on what the standards are - in the case of RFCs, it's the RFC as issued by the IETF. Having modifiable RFCs would make no difference in this respect. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
