[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