rfc non freeness - could a summary of the issue be made ?
Well i have followed the issue without looking further until i end up
on :
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc-editor/rfc-copyright-story.html
there is the standard copyright there which looks like it forbid
modifications though i find the "RFC COPYRIGHTS" introduction somewhat
conflicting with it .
RFC COPYRIGHTS
This copyright notice was designed to ensure that Request For Comments
(RFC) documents will have the widest possible distribution. The following
general guidelines control the reproduction and modification of RFCs.
1. Copying and distributing an entire RFC without any changes:
1a. The copying and free redistribution are generally encouraged.
1b. The inclusion of such RFC copies in other documents and
collections that are distributed for a fee is also encouraged.
However, in this case it is a courtesy (i) to ask the RFC author and
(ii) provide the RFC author with a copy of the final document or
collection.
Anyone can take some RFCs, put them in a book, copyright the
book, and sell it. This in no way inhibits anyone else from
doing the same thing, or inhibits any other distribution of
the RFCs.
2. Copying and distributing the whole RFC with changes in format,
font, etcetera:
2a. The same as case 1, with the addition that a note should be made
of the reformatting.
3. Copying and distributing portions of an RFC:
3a. As with any material excerpted from another source, proper credit
and citations must be provided.
4. Translating RFCs into other languages:
4a. Since wide distribution of RFCs is very desirable, translation
into other languages is also desirable. The same requirements and
courtesies should be followed in distributing RFCs in translation as
would be followed when distributing RFCs in the original language.
The RFC Editor
Last revised: 23 January 2001
1 make it redistributable.
>From 2 we can make formatting changes with the same freeness as the GPL , same for translation.
3 looks heavily like the revised BSD licence.
Also : Instructions to RFC Authors - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2223.html
12. Relation to other RFCs
Sometimes an RFC adds information on a topic discussed in a previous
RFC or completely replaces an earlier RFC. There are two terms used
for these cases respectively, Updates and Obsoletes. A document that
obsoletes an earlier document can stand on its own. A document that
merely updates an earlier document cannot stand on its own; it is
something that must be added to or inserted into the previously
existing document, and has limited usefulness independently. The
terms Supercedes and Replaces are no longer used.
Updates
To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
to the previous document. The newer publication is a part that
will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
the original document.
Obsoletes
To be used to refer to an earlier document that is replaced by
this document. This document contains either revised information,
or else all of the same information plus some new information,
however extensive or brief that new information is; i.e., this
document can be used alone, without reference to the older
document.
For example:
On the Assigned Numbers RFCs the term Obsoletes should be used
since the new document actually incorporate new information
(however brief) into the text of existing information and is
more up-to-date than the older document, and hence, replaces it
and makes it Obsoletes.
In lists of RFCs or the RFC-Index (but not on the RFCs themselves)
the following may be used with early documents to point to later
documents.
Obsoleted-by
To be used to refer to the newer document(s) that replaces the
older document.
Updated-by
To be used to refer to the newer section(s) which are to be added
to the existing,12. Relation to other RFCs
Sometimes an RFC adds information on a topic discussed in a previous
RFC or completely replaces an earlier RFC. There are two terms used
for these cases respectively, Updates and Obsoletes. A document that
obsoletes an earlier document can stand on its own. A document that
merely updates an earlier document cannot stand on its own; it is
something that must be added to or inserted into the previously
existing document, and has limited usefulness independently. The
terms Supercedes and Replaces are no longer used.
Updates
To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
to the previous document. The newer publication is a part that
will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
the original document.
Obsoletes
To be used to refer to an earlier document that is replaced by
this document. This document contains either revised information,
or else all of the same information plus some new information,
however extensive or brief that new information is; i.e., this
document can be used alone, without reference to the older
document.
For example:
On the Assigned Numbers RFCs the term Obsoletes should be used
since the new document actually incorporate new information
(however brief) into the text of existing information and is
more up-to-date than the older document, and hence, replaces it
and makes it Obsoletes.
In lists of RFCs or the RFC-Index (but not on the RFCs themselves)
the following may be used with early documents to point to later
documents.
Obsoleted-by
To be used to refer to the newer document(s) that replaces the
older document.
Updated-by
To be used to refer to the newer section(s) which are to be added
to the existing, still used, document. still used, document.
and:
4) How can I correct an error in a published RFC? http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html
You cannot! Once an RFC is published, it cannot be changed. The RFCs form an archival series. If the bug represents a change of content, a revised RFC can be written that obsoletes the one in error.
For both technical and editorial errors, the RFC Editor provides a list
of errata for published RFCs. This page contains a list of errors that
have been reported to the RFC Editor. Please verify all suspected errors
with the authors prior to sending us an error notification.
So it looks like some sort of "revision control" like a changelog ...
older version are not replaced but archived. Does it make us less free
to change it ?
Also the request to not name a modified version of "rfc 12" rfc 12 is
not an issue regarding freeness (it is a requirement we find in the GPL
too ...
In the instructions for Authors i can find issues which could lead to
rfc being non free (some sort of invariant in the document structure ...
though i wonder if enabling user to use "info" formatting and structure
for a man page compare ).
There is also the process to submit a new "version" of the rfc which
requires giving copyright and the new version to be approved by the "RFC
Editor" ...
Is there a consensus about what make it non free : "STANDARD RFC
COPYRIGHT" is the only relevant statement (have the "RFC Editor" been
contacted ?) or something else. If so could it be added to:
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
Regards
Alban
PS: i believe rfc should be in their owns packages as the whole archive
is the document , the only way to get the "last revision" of an rfc is
to have the whole archive ...
Packages could make symlinks to their docs dir to help find out on which
version they where based though this would not be less works for the
maintainers than the current plan to remove all rfc from packages in
main . So this is merely a legal only request (thus not forwarded to
-devel)
Reply to: