Re: cl-rfc2109: requesting comments
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 07:33:03PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> However as already written, upstream solution, as mine, suffers the
> RFC parts in the function descriptions. Back in October 2006, Pierre
> Thierry asked if these parts could be allowed even if not-free [4],
> but no one answered him. Since I'm not a license nor an RFC expert,
> here I am :-)
Are you able to provide detail of all the verbatim RFC content that is
contained in the package? Looking at the source on your Alioth
repository (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7079777.stm), it
looks like it is just the section headings that are quoted ("4.2.2
Set-Cookie Syntax, NAME section" etc). Is that correct?
Personally, I find it hard to see that there'd be a major copyright
issue with retaining those headings, as it is unlikely that copying
the headings will infringe copyright in the RFC text.
However, that is subject to the vagaries of copyright interpretation,
and so the cautious approach would be to remove the text of each
section heading while retaining the section number. I flatly refuse to
believe that any copyright jurisdiction in the world would extend
protection to the section numbers alone, and this would still allow
cross-referencing between the code and the RFC text.
Please note though that I'm relatively new to this list, and can't
claim any expertise on how the DFSG is normally applied in this
situation.
John
(TINLA)
Reply to: