[Standards] XEP licensing

[Richard Laager]

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote:
> > > IIRC, the problem was that
> > > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs.
> > 
> > Why would they want to modify RFCs?
> 
> It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point  
> of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their  
> requirements, either.
> 
> We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require.  
> If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm  
> not too fussed anyway.

Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works?

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20071022/88bb16f2/attachment.pgp