Richard Laager wrote: > 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?
I don't see any. It is common knowledge who published the specifications in the first place (the XSF), so if people want to find the canonical source they know where to look. And BTW as far as I understand it, a translation would count as a derivative work. Indeed I would place the XEPs in the public domain if it were up to me, but it seems that (1) the concept of the public domain is not recognized in all countries and (2) exercising some form of copyright over the XEPs is more consistent with the XSF's role as an "intellectual property conservancy" (see the XSF's IPR policy for details). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
