Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
> Thanks, but I'm thinking more of the kinds of license that says you
> *have* to publish your changes and in a specific venue. seems like a
> close comparison with what has been said here about RFCs.
Ah, yes, that's normally not considered DFSG-free, I believe. I had
thought this part of the thread was about a hypothetical license that
would allow reuse of RFC material provided that the result was not called
an RFC, which I believe would be DFSG-free.
> Seems to me that by the time I can't share my patch with my friend
> directly, but *only* post it to the vendor, it is not free software,
> and it sounds like this is the situation with RFCs.
Yup. The IETF process is certainly more open than most vendors, but they
don't publish all submitted I-Ds and using RFC material requires that you
work through the process so far as I can tell.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>