Thomas Charron wrote: > 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.
Personally I don't worry about such theoretical concerns. The solution to such worries is to publish early and often at xmpp.org. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
