Re: doc only packages

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Is it necessary that we're allowed to change the content of documents in > > main? I would like to package the standard documents from W3, but they > > don't allow to change the content. And this makes sense, because this > > documen

Re^2: doc only packages

Am 14.01.98 schrieb bruce # va.debian.org ... Moin [EMAIL PROTECTED] b> Can you point me to the license statement? I will take it up with the b> W3 chair. Read the copyright FAQ (www.w3.org). b> They should give us the freedom to make changes in formatting, spelling, b> language translation, an

Re^2: doc only packages

Am 15.01.98 schrieb mmagallo # efis.ucr.ac.cr ... Moin "Marcelo! "MEM> Woops. (How did I miss this?) I packaged the HTML 4.0 Recommendation, Have you announced that your're packaging this document? "MEM> and I missed the line that makes it non DFSG complaint. It says: "MEM> "No right to create

Re: doc only packages

I'll correspond with Tim B-L. I have the license statement. Thanks Bruce

Re: doc only packages

On 14 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Is it necessary that we're allowed to change the content of documents in > > main? I would like to package the standard documents from W3, but they > > don't allow to change the content. And this makes sense, because this > > documents are standard

Re: doc only packages

> Is it necessary that we're allowed to change the content of documents in > main? I would like to package the standard documents from W3, but they > don't allow to change the content. And this makes sense, because this > documents are standards. Can you point me to the license statement? I

doc only packages

Moin Moin! Is it necessary that we're allowed to change the content of documents in main? I would like to package the standard documents from W3, but they don't allow to change the content. And this makes sense, because this documents are standards. Maybe we should change the policy for docu