Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
RFCs - insufficiently free?RFCs - insufficiently free?Posted Jul 17, 2003 3:04 UTC (Thu) by wa1hco (subscriber, #3628)Parent article: RFCs - insufficiently free? What's the point of a standard if anyone can change it? That's brain dead. Debian can't possibly want the "freedom" to change standards without notice, can they? I don't want a computer with a "better" Ethernet, which is also untested, unproven, and non-interoperable. The process of reaching an agreement about a standard has significant value. It't ok to propose a new RFC...but it doesn't become a "standard" until the community reaches consensus. Maybe the solution is to allow anyone to change the standard but they have to change the revision...or RFC number or something.
(Log in to post comments)
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 17, 2003 3:32 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] First of all Ethernet is an IEEE standard.I think the point is that the evolution of the standards (yes, If the ISOC decides to halt development of the Internet To address your concern it would be enough to require removal
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:40 UTC (Thu) by EricBackus (guest, #2816) [Link] You wrote:> If the ISOC decides to halt development of the Internet Remember that copyright protects a particular expression of
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 17, 2003 3:46 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] You can't possibly think that changing the text in RFC XYZQ actually changes the standard described in RFC XYZQ. That's absurd. That's like saying I shouldn't be able to use some ls(1) source code (say, the directory traversal code) in a program to delete files, because then ls won't list files anymore.Rather, what Debian wants is the ability to use the text from RFCs elsewhere - free software documentation, for example. Or being able to write a standard based off of RFC 1234, *clearly identified as not being RFC 1234*, but using parts of the standards document. Don't confuse the text of the standards document with the actual standard.
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 19, 2003 22:35 UTC (Sat) by pascal.martin (subscriber, #2995) [Link] A standard is defined by its text. There is no other reference that exists, unless one is ready to accept proprietary implementation as a substitute, Microsoft Windows style...Thus it becomes highly critical that when someone makes reference to a given standard, everyone knows what _exact_ text it is. This is also why standards have revision numbers. A given standard with a given revision number is assumed to represent a given, unaltered, text. Without this protection, the notion of standard is a joke and Microsoft policy of non-conforming implementation becomes morally right. Restricting the change of a standard is therefore a _major_ protection of freedom (i.e. freedom of creating conforming implementation), exactly like restricting the changes to a constitution text is a major protection of citizen's freedom. IMHO, a standard is not a text like others. It is a reference text that is trusted by everyone. Probably standard bodies should start issuing official signature for the text of their standard, including certified translations.
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 24, 2003 9:02 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] Revision numbers are useless if you can't make revisions! Compare RFC 2068 and RFC 2616. One is clearly an updated version of the other, but the release of RFC 2616 changed nothing about what people mean when they refer to RFC 2068. What Debian is saying is that it would be a bad thing if *only* the IETF could ever release an updated version of RFC 2616.
Standards are about trademark, not copyright Posted Jul 18, 2003 14:24 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] A standard is not a law. It is a definition.So the point of a standard isn't to prevent anyone from changing it, but just to provide a common name people can use to describe something. The SCSI standard doesn't say I'm not allowed to use 0xF2 as the read command on my scanner. It just says I can't call it a SCSI scanner if I do, which tells you not to buy it if you plan to hook it up to a SCSI host. So using copyright this way for RFCs is wrong. It means the author is using his copy right as a stick to maintain hegemony over the subject. By making it harder for someone to write a competing standard (he'd have to write it from scratch using his own words), he makes it less likely that someone will do so. Trademark law is the appropriate tool. You aren't allowed to refer to anything but the original RFC 821 as RFC 821.
Standards are about trademark, not copyright Posted Jul 19, 2003 22:45 UTC (Sat) by pascal.martin (subscriber, #2995) [Link] Standard are contracts, not trademarks.Similar to a law or a commercial contract, a standard is the result of an agreements between parties. Changing that text nullify the agreement. BTW, if any text is free, there is no reason why I could not rewrite the Debian constitution myself and release it in the wild as the "latest version"? I am sure that would generate an interesting trail of emails :-)
Compare Posted Jul 21, 2003 16:59 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] That argument sounds a bit like SCO's claim that Linux users would be ableto erase "evidence" if they revealed what portions of the kernel they believe were "stolen". Being able to make a copy of something and change it does not mean that Especially if the copy is required to be called something different :)
|
|||||||||||