[Ron Johnson] > If I decided that I wanted to "build a better mousetrap", the first > thing I'd do is go read the relevant RFCs. Right, and the second thing you'd do is start hammering out a spec for your improved protocol. Doing this by cutting and pasting bits from the existing RFC just might be a lot more convenient than rewriting your whole protocol spec from scratch. > While I know that a source file is a "document", some of us have > more difficulty than others believing or even *agreeing* that > "traditional" documents should be GPL-style libre. We're pretty much at an impasse, then, so I don't think I'll reply after this message. I, and many Debian folks, don't quite understand the essential difference, between functional source code and non-functional documents[*], that make the DFSG freedoms only important for the one and not the other. I mean, if I might want to freely make derivative works of software, well, maybe I want to freely make derivative works of spec documents too. For many of the same reasons, in fact. [*] And, in fact, RFC documents are more "functional" than most other documents. A few even include example source code. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature