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

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

2007/9/12, John Kelly <jak@isp2dial.com>:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <nospam@vuorela.dk> wrote:
> >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <jak@isp2dial.com> wrote:
> >> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
> >>
> >> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
> >> they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
> >
> >eh? whattabout modification? and distribution of modified versions?
> This is where it gets absurd.
> They're RFCs.  They're not code.
> If you want to "modify" an RFC, you have to write your own and submit
> it, see?

Why is it absurd? What about translating it, for example, or including
parts of it in other document, or mixing parts of RFCs in a single
document, or making a derivative specification out of it, or changing
the format or structure for clarifying, or even fixing typos? What
about including some parts of an RFC in the help text of an
application, .. I can see many situations in which a modification of
the RFC text could be important.


Reply to: