Re: Source package contains non-free IETF RFC/I-D's
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Simon Josefsson 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.
I don't see any reason we should honor retroactive claims of copyright. If
the RFCs were genuinely placed in the public domain, then this can't be
revoked; true "public domain" means that there is no longer a copyright
which applies to the work, and therefore no license is needed. If the RFCs
were /not/ placed in the public domain, the question then is, who holds the
copyright on them? Only if the IETF is the copyright holder should we need
to honor their attempts to relicense.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.