On 10/22/07, Richard Laager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
People possibly change the spec, and distribute it indistinguishable from the original. But then I suppose that could be taken care of by clarifying that the derivative must be clearly marked as such. -- -- Thomas
