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

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

Hash: SHA1

On 09/12/07 04:30, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 04:19 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
>> Except for "fixing typos", none of what you seem to propose seems
>> to my humble eyes to be modifying the base document.  Give the new
>> document a derived name, indicating the changes.  Inside the
>> document, clearly define what changes you've made to the base document.
> Sorry, but the license doesn't allow that.

Which license?  I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have
a different (sometimes non-existent) license.  All, though, seem to
say, "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."

It would be useful to show John and I some specific examples of RFCs
that don't allow any reformatting or translation derivations.

>> Bottom line: being able to willy-nilly change protocol specification
>> base documents seems, to me, to be One *Stupid* Idea.
> A license requiring modified versions to be clearly marked as such, with
> a changed name, would definitely be considered free, and still wouldn't
> encourage such practice.
> Not being able to draft derived versions of specifications is another
> plain stupid idea.

Since when can't you draft derived versions?

RFC 1725 is (quoting the text) "primarily a minor revision to RFC
1460", which in turn is (again quoting the text) "primarily a minor
revision to [RFC1225]", which itself in turn is based on ideas from
RFCs 918, 937, and 1081.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: