On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:15:13AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > the format for an RFC is pretty much prescribed by convention if not by > > > explict written rule, and the data is implicit in what you're writing. > > > given > > > those two conditions, any "clean room" re-implementation of an RFC is > > > likely > > > to be nearly identical to a copy anyway. > > > > An RFC has sufficient creative input to merit copyright protection? An > > interesting claim, not one that I think I've seen before. > > ITYM s/sufficient/insufficient/
Indeed. Thanks. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
