On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:19:31PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 08:16:46PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote: > > > The ftpmasters have recently rejected a package that contains another > > > schema file with identical license text, and there was no obvious > > > opposition to that decision on Debian legal [0], so the current > > > understanding seems to be that this license is not free.
> > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/threads.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00051.html ff. > That whole discussion is silly. I am not a lawyer but I for me it looks > like you are not allowed to modify the RFC document which is fine in > this context. It's just that we use the schema documented in the RFC. Which means we should be shipping a functional schema, but not the copyrighted RFC. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
