Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
* Matthew Garrett:
> Robert Lemmen wrote:
>
>>right, and while we're at it: a standards document (like a RFC) is
>>another different thing. it is and should be not allowed to modify it,
>>and we should still be able to ship it. it is exactly as free as it
>>should be.
>
> Why the fuck should we not be allowed to modify it?
To update it to match actual practice?
Look at one of the SCTP RFCs, and you get the idea why *really* want
to create a derivative work in such cases.
--
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt,
tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com.
Reply to: