On 17 okt 2006, at 18.47, Luk Claes wrote:
Some statistics:
74 packages
401 MATCH, i.e., the RFC in the source package is an authentic RFC
79 MISMATCH, i.e., the RFC differ from the authentic RFC
6 FETCH-FAIL
Note that not all authentic RFC documents have the same license,
some of them
are probably even DFSG compliant...
Can you name one such license that is DFSG-free?
RFC's published before 1989 may be in the public domain, since they
don't contain a copyright notice, but the RFC editor claim that the
new copying conditions apply retroactively.
RFC's published after 1989 are protected by copyrights, but as far as
I know, none of the RFC licenses are free. The RFC 2026 and the RFC
3978 licenses has been discussed before. That leaves, I believe,
only the license specified by RFC 1602, which reads:
"Copyright (c) ISOC (year date). Permission is granted
to reproduce, distribute, transmit and otherwise
communicate to the public any material subject to
copyright by ISOC, provided that credit is given to the
source. For information concerning required
That appears to be non-free.
I note that RFC 1602 do seem to give the ISOC the right to release
those RFCs under a liberal license:
l. Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a
perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right
and license under any copyrights in the contribution to
reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly and
prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate
all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce,
distribute and perform or display publicly any such
derivative works, in any form and in all languages,
and to
authorize others to do so.
Perhaps talking to ISOC about this would help.
So there can be more than 79 false positives...
I don't yet see any way for that to hold.
/Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
