On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > > IIRC, the problem was that > > > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. > > > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? > > It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point > of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their > requirements, either. > > We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. > If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm > not too fussed anyway.
Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works? Richard
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
