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

Re: Effort to change IETF's copying conditions for RFCs

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:16:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>> Unlimited distribution isn't the problem.  Modification and
>>> redistribution of modified versions is the problem, and that
>>> restriction was apparently

>> If the IETF allows modified versions that are *RENAMED*, then it would
>> meet the DFSG.  They can even restrict the renaming to "something that
>> makes it clear that this is not an RFC, STD, <insert other IETF acronyms
>> here>"...

> Right, I know.  Apparently it was intentional on the part of the IETF to
> not even allow that.  Don't look at me; I think it's a stupid decision.

> I'm not saying we can't get them to change it, or that we shouldn't try,
> or anything else that discouraging.  I'm just saying that it isn't solely
> a misunderstanding or lack of clarity; there really is an underlying
> disagreement here.

If the IETF doesn't even want people distributing modified, clearly
indicated derived works, then how do people work on 'bis' versions of
RFCs? eg. 2326bis, 'draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-02.txt' is the old
version I have lying around here now, which is clearly a derived work of

Of course, this might be an IETF document, and _they_ are free to modify
their own documents. I don't know that much about the IETF's processes,
but it seems that denying the right to derive works from IETF standards
documents is counterproductive, while restricting the naming of derived
works to avoid confusion is understandable.

Then again, do we want people forking RFCs? ^_^

Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/

Attachment: pgpJnbkQparOd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: