On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote: > 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. Then we have no business shipping it, particularly since it's non-free. > 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. Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other than the IETF from revising an RFC and publishing the result. In addition, this license prohibits taking text from an RFC and using it in free documentation, or even in the --help output for free software. It's non-free whichever way you slice it. > 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. Respect the wishes of the original authors of the software and use it in the "proper" manner: they way they intended it to be used, unmodified. Oh, oops. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpkLkemgaAUn.pgp
Description: PGP signature