Re: documentation x executable code

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > the format for an RFC is pretty much prescribed by convention if not by
> > explict written rule, and the data is implicit in what you're writing.  given
> > those two conditions, any "clean room" re-implementation of an RFC is likely
> > to be nearly identical to a copy anyway.
> 
> An RFC has sufficient creative input to merit copyright protection?  An
> interesting claim, not one that I think I've seen before.

ITYM s/sufficient/insufficient/

> > perhaps, just perhaps, the reason is that there is an implicit acknowledgement
> > of the fact that documents don't need to be held to the exact same standard of
> > freedom as software, hence it doesn't actually qualify as "non-free" (even
> > though it would if it were software).
> 
> It's a really poor attempt, and doesn't represent my beliefs at all.  

Or anyone else, as far as I know.  (I doubt Craig actually believes this
himself.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard