On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 08:55:45PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well? > > Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention. > > > AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict > > the right of making modifications to parts of the documentation. Is > > that non-free, too??? > > There is no such thing. If you meant the GNU Free Documentation > License, that one allows non-modification clauses only for non-topical > chapters. So I think it is ok with DFSG.
If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for standards? A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date than a standard, which by design is intended to be eternally fixed. In any case, the DFSG offers exceptions for neither, so the non-modification clause in the GNU FDL is not _okay_ with the DFSG. By the strict reading of the DFSG, if it is to apply to documentation and RFC's, modificiation must be allowed. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg