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

Re: documentation x executable code

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > But that's covered by DFSG 4 - it would be acceptable for people to have
> > to rename modified versions. What if I base my fridge stock querying
> > system on IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to
> > modify the IMAP RFC.
> actually, the easiest way would be to write a new RFC (or other document)
> which referenced the IMAP RFCs.
> "... except as described below, the protocol is the same as IMAP (note that it
> requires a refridgerator or freezer of at least 80 litres capacity) ..."

Sometimes this is a good approach, sometime it isn't.  It certainly isn't
good to do this for several generations of protocols, so a reader would
have to understand a chain of several protocols, each described as a
plain-English diff against the previous.  Whether to modify the document
directly or to explain as a set of changes should be up to the person
creating a new standard, not set in stone by the license in an overly-
broad attempt at preventing confusion.

This is not a convincing argument for why freedom is unimportant for
standards documents (and so unimportant that Debian should actually
make an exception to allow it, with all of the slippery slopes and
other messes that would entail).

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: