On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:27:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote: > > John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes: > > You should. But that criterion doesn't cover all cases that people > > are concerned about. For instance, no matter how much you modify a > > piece of software, why do you need to modify the RFCs? Or, consider > > GFDL invariant sections. > > You might want to modify RFCs because a couple of pages could make a nice > insert in your own manual. Or you're drafting a successor to an RFC. Or > you're basing a protocol on one described in an RFC. Insert: Covered already, I believe, as a partial reproduction. This is not the same thing as a modification. Successor: if you're following proper RFC procedures, you're writing a *draft* RFC which refers (possibly extensively) to the origional. This, also, is not modification. Protocol: you can't implement a new protocol that differs from an old RFC, change the RFC, and expect anyone to believe it's compliant just because you have a non-approved 'standards' document. If you're documenting your extensions, then it is supposed to be a new RFC, referring to the old one (vis extensions to ESMTP). > DFSG already allows there to be a term such as "You may distribute a > modified form of the RFC822 document, but you may not call it RFC822 if it's > been modified." To me, that seems sufficient. As was noted the last time this came up, the prior expectations of what 'free' means and how you interact with documentation are both long-established (how long have people been writing papers with Bibliographies and refences sections?) and significantly different standards from those applied to software. It serves very little purpose to insist that we treat apples like oranges; true, they're both fruit, and they're both easily spoiled if not taken care of properly, but you'll get a bad taste in your mouth if you just bite into an orange. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgpyjXrm1LCr0.pgp
Description: PGP signature