On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> Since the doc-rfc packages have been moved to non-free, I have just cloned
> the doc-rfc RC bug (#92810) and assigned it to some other packages which
> provide RFCs (for a full list see the the bug report, but more might be
> affected). I advise maintainers which include RFCs in their packages to
> remove the RFC documentation from them.
Note that ISOC is not granted an exclusive copyright license.
Therefore, one option that is open to a maintainer is to try to
contact the original author of the RFC, and ask for permission to
redistribute under a DFSG-compliant license.
This obviously won't work for the entire RFC series, but if it is
extremely important to include a particular RFC in a package for
documentation purposes, this is one way to accomplish it.
Also, as already has been pointed out, some of the early RFC's do not
have the objectionable ISOC copyright terms in them.
- Ted
