Ron Johnson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 +0000 (UTC), Sune Vuorela
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
eh? whattabout modification? and distribution of modified versions?
This is where it gets absurd.
They're RFCs. They're not code.
Except for "fixing typos", none of what you seem to propose seems
to my humble eyes to be modifying the base document. Give the new
document a derived name, indicating the changes. Inside the
document, clearly define what changes you've made to the base document.
>
Someone who uses the modified RFC would create a buggy-by-design
program and when he realized what some DD had done, boy would he
(and his bosses, if relevant) be steamed, his trust in Debian would
plunge, he might write a Slashdotted article that ZDNet picks up on,
and FLOSS get a big black eye.
What about adding clarifications, what about summarising parts of the
RFC? It's more about the freedom to fix things or to use things than it
is to make it buggy... It's also not only about Debian, but in fact more
about the freedom of our users to modify RFCs...
Bottom line: being able to willy-nilly change protocol specification
base documents seems, to me, to be One *Stupid* Idea.
Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
willy-nilly modify the RFC text.
Note that it still would be perfectly possible to restrict the use of
'RFC' for these modifications...
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
