[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Thanks, but I'm thinking more of the kinds of license that says you > *have* to publish your changes and in a specific venue. seems like a > close comparison with what has been said here about RFCs.
Ah, yes, that's normally not considered DFSG-free, I believe. I had thought this part of the thread was about a hypothetical license that would allow reuse of RFC material provided that the result was not called an RFC, which I believe would be DFSG-free. > Seems to me that by the time I can't share my patch with my friend > directly, but *only* post it to the vendor, it is not free software, > and it sounds like this is the situation with RFCs. Yup. The IETF process is certainly more open than most vendors, but they don't publish all submitted I-Ds and using RFC material requires that you work through the process so far as I can tell. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]