On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for > >> documentation than executables? > > > > I always go back to the technical standards when asked that. > > > > Clearly, if anyone can change a standard (without going through whatever is > > the revision procedure for that standard), it loses most of its most > > important characterstics. It is no longer capable of ensuring that all > > implementantions are based on common ground, for example. > > But that's covered by DFSG 4 - it would be acceptable for people to have > to rename modified versions. What if I base my fridge stock querying > system on IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to > modify the IMAP RFC.
actually, the easiest way would be to write a new RFC (or other document) which referenced the IMAP RFCs. "... except as described below, the protocol is the same as IMAP (note that it requires a refridgerator or freezer of at least 80 litres capacity) ..." craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)