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