[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 07:07, Luk Claes wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Someone who uses the modified RFC would create a buggy-by-design
>> program and when he realized what some DD had done, boy would he
>> (and his bosses, if relevant) be steamed, his trust in Debian would
>> plunge, he might write a Slashdotted article that ZDNet picks up on,
>> and FLOSS get a big black eye.
> What about adding clarifications, what about summarising parts of the
> RFC? It's more about the freedom to fix things or to use things than it
> is to make it buggy... It's also not only about Debian, but in fact more
> about the freedom of our users to modify RFCs...

These are "official" protocol specifications.  If you want to
summarize the RFC, do it in a separate document.

>> Bottom line: being able to willy-nilly change protocol specification
>> base documents seems, to me, to be One *Stupid* Idea.
> Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
> only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
> willy-nilly modify the RFC text.

I'm shaking my head in stunned disbelief.

> Note that it still would be perfectly possible to restrict the use of
> 'RFC' for these modifications...

- --
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: