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

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages



On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and the new document is given a new reference number.  You've said
the words yourself, "formulated into new documents."  The new document
is referenced as RFC (MAX+1).  The revision process itself shows that
the document is static.  Individual documents may prohibit editing, but
the process encourages it.  I suggest reading RFC 2026 in its entirety.

> 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.

Hmmm...  In RFC 2026[1], which describes the Notifications to be included
in each standards-related documentation, suggestes in section 10.4.(C)
that such fair-use is allowed.  Interesting that you would interpret it
otherwise.

> It's non-free whichever way you slice it.

I never said it wasn't.  You're stating the obvious, because you're
being pedantic about the DFSG.  Like I said before, and a statement you
conveinently overlooked in order to drag this thread out, that's fine.
If you don't think it should be in main or even contrib, that's
understandable.  I stated that it SHOULD be packaged.  Whether or not we
include it in non-free is up for debate in yet another thread and
mailing list, debian-legal.  (See: beat dead horse)

I apologize for getting into this thread to begin with, because I see
we've become terribly off-topic.  The original question was, "Should we
include RFC documentation in Official Debian packages?"  The answer, if
we follow pedantic procedure with respect to DFSG and the Social
Contract, is "No."  End of discussion.
 
> 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. ...[snip]... Oh, oops.

Exactly.  Now you're getting it.  Those English and Grammar classes must
be paying off.

References
==========
1. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
-- 
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>           http://www.wookimus.net/
           assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */

Attachment: pgpoVcH4jau09.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: