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

Re: [Internet-Drafts@ietf.org: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:29:26AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
> > either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
> > standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
> Agreed.  If someone from the Debian community has the patience to help
> explain this, joining the IPR working group within the IETF would be
> useful.  But please keep the situation civil, and instead of assuming
> people disagree with you,, assume they don't understand your position.

They can't understand the position if they're making the argument
referred to above; if they did, they would minimally explain how
they don't believe renaming requirements are sufficient, and address
the case of independent documents being misrepresented as RFCs.

(It's not too surprising, though--even people on this list continue to
make the same argument.  It just takes a bit of repetition, sometimes,
before a counterargument registers.)

> There is an opportunity to turn this into progress, though.

Maybe.  It's a better situation than those where copyright holders ignore
licensing issues and refuse to deal with them entirely, at least.  (Even
if they can be negotiated to a closer-to-Free license, that's an improvement,
even though the result still won't go in Debian.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: