On 03 Jul 2003 13:00:47 +0200 Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> wrote: > > [Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña] > > (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810) > > There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be > treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not > improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified > version as an updated version of the standard. Standards get their > value from having a rigid procedure for updates and modifications. > Software do not. > > I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The > Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of > understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected. > Standards are not software, nor software manuals, and should not be > treated as such. > > I haven't been following this case, and understand it might be late to > speak up against it, but believe it is about time the whole case is > stopped. #92810 specifically deals with whether the RFCs should be in main or non-free. They are not freely modifiable, so they should not be in main - end of story, regardless of whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I happen to agree with your thoughts (if not the phrasing and tone), and agree that standards by their nature can't be both Free and effective. But they're no less effective in non-free, so just relax :)
Attachment:
pgpXE4Vl4bxgo.pgp
Description: PGP signature