Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Once again: yes, if it's legal to distribute standards which don't
Raul> allow revision then we should do so, but not as part of main.
Raul> But standards which merely ask that modified results be identified
Raul> as not that standard should receive preferential treatment (and be
Raul> distributed as a part of main).
Raul> I'm not sure why you have a problem with this?
Because I am not sure that the standard which asks no
modifications to be made is detrimental to the free software
community, and I definitely do not think it should be consigned to
the same category as proprietary software in non-free.
I, too, prefer standards that use the modification-means-rename
claues, and they should be goven preference -- but I do not think
that standards that are freely distributable but do not allow
modifications do not deserve a place in main.
I think we differ in where we draw the line, and that is
essentially opinion. What do others on the policy list think?
manoj
--
You will have a head crash on your private pack.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
