Re: Proposal to modify DFSG
Paul M Foster wrote:
> I couldn't agree with this more.
>
> On the binary kernel drivers issue, well maybe....
>
> But specifically on the issues of documentation and licenses, it's
> patently obvious that this isn't "software" and shouldn't be treated as
> such. You can't go around randomly modifying RFCs and the GPL. That's
> the whole point of them. And yet, because you can't, they don't satisfy
> part of the DFSG, and thus must be removed?
You've missed the point in the same way as many other people.
The word "modifying" is used as shorthand for "creating derivative works".
(Although I'm going to stop using that shorthand since it seems to confuse
people.) You should be able to make a derivative work of an RFC (under a
different name, of course), in order to define a different standard.
Prohibiting this is not "the whole point" of the RFCs by any means.
I could use your argument on programs with the same validity: "You can't go
around randomly modifying a program which does X so that it does something
different. That's the whole point of the program."
See the missing distinction?
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: