On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.
Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation. It is not software. In a more general reaction to posts on the list, to say an RFC is an editable document is downright silly. It is a literary work that is intended to be a static document, a reference for protocol implementation. An RFC goes through very little editorial changes once it's been published. The very process used by the IETF perserves previous versions of the documentation, this is why you find "This document superceeds: ..." Their copyright reflects this process. To require or demand that the IETF changes their copyright policy or their publishing practices to cater to someone else's idea of what the document should be used for is plain arogance. Respect the wishes of the original authors and the established, reliable publishing policy of the IETF, and use the document in the proper manner: reference it in your own supplemental documentation. If you really feel you must implement your software in a manner that doesn't comply with an existing RFC's, which is certainly acceptable, place that in your README or appropriate text. I really don't see what's wrong with the RFC copyright. It is freely distributable reference documentation. It is not software. Perhaps it shouldn't be distributed in Debian "main" because of a pedantic interpretation of the DFSG, (there's that software reference again) and Social Contract. Fine, but it should still be packaged. It is a valuable reference, and having the convenience of package installation improves it's distribution amongst developers. -- Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
pgp4SsLR4JOmT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
