On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and > > formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other > > than the IETF from revising an RFC and publishing the result. > > Yes, and the new document is given a new reference number. You've said > the words yourself, "formulated into new documents." The new document > is referenced as RFC (MAX+1). The revision process itself shows that > the document is static. Individual documents may prohibit editing, but > the process encourages it. I suggest reading RFC 2026 in its entirety.
The license prohibits anybody from doing this; the IETF can only because they own the copyright. > > In addition, this license prohibits taking text from an RFC and using > > it in free documentation, or even in the --help output for free > > software. > > Hmmm... In RFC 2026[1], which describes the Notifications to be included > in each standards-related documentation, suggestes in section 10.4.(C) > that such fair-use is allowed. Interesting that you would interpret it > otherwise. Where? Also note that fair use does not exist in all jurisdictions, so claiming something is free based on fair use provisions is bogus. > > Respect the wishes of the original authors of the software and use it > > in the "proper" manner: they way they intended it to be used, > > unmodified. ...[snip]... Oh, oops. > > Exactly. Now you're getting it. Those English and Grammar classes must > be paying off. Your sarcasm detector is broken. And for some reason you seem to be advocating non-free software. Go away. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
pgp8MYUZBZPio.pgp
Description: PGP signature
