Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I think you are right. It is not a good idea to provide links to software > > of which we cannot (currently) guarantee that it is Free Software. > > Could you provide a patch (source is in CVS module classpath under > > docs/www.gnu.org). > > Sure, I'll try to do this in the next couple of days. > > Incidentally, the link for the jgss package is also misleading, as the > RFC doesn't appear to contain any implementation of the package in > question (I scanned all the way to the end, the only source code was > examples of usage) and even if it did, the license on the RFC is not > free (it does not allow modification of the RFC itself, although > certain kinds of derived works are permitted). > > (Note that I'm not suggesting that that would prohibit linking to the > RFC in general, as the RFC is not software - just that if software > source code *were* included in the RFC, that software would not be > free). > > Should my patch remove that link as well?
This sort of religious zealotry is not helpful. People wishing to implement free versions should know where to go for the standard, the RFC, etc. If it is not possible to link in this context then the FSF web server is useless and I'll have to consider moving http://www.classpath.org/ elsewhere. Brian -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
