[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.

Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation.  It
is not software.

In a more general reaction to posts on the list, to say an RFC is an
editable document is downright silly.  It is a literary work that is
intended to be a static document, a reference for protocol
implementation.  An RFC goes through very little editorial changes once
it's been published.  The very process used by the IETF perserves
previous versions of the documentation, this is why you find "This
document superceeds: ..." Their copyright reflects this process.

To require or demand that the IETF changes their copyright policy or
their publishing practices to cater to someone else's idea of what the
document should be used for is plain arogance.  Respect the wishes of
the original authors and the established, reliable publishing policy of
the IETF, and use the document in the proper manner: reference it in
your own supplemental documentation.

If you really feel you must implement your software in a manner that
doesn't comply with an existing RFC's, which is certainly acceptable,
place that in your README or appropriate text.

I really don't see what's wrong with the RFC copyright.  It is freely
distributable reference documentation.  It is not software.  Perhaps it
shouldn't be distributed in Debian "main" because of a pedantic
interpretation of the DFSG, (there's that software reference again) and
Social Contract.  Fine, but it should still be packaged.  It is a
valuable reference, and having the convenience of package installation
improves it's distribution amongst developers.

Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>           http://www.wookimus.net/
           assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */

Attachment: pgp_Zi3QeEMNh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: