RFCs - insufficiently free? [LWN.net]

RFCs - insufficiently free?

Posted Jul 17, 2003 3:56 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203)
Parent article: RFCs - insufficiently free?

Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see a problem. Worst case scenario, if the Internet Society goes totally over to the enemy (who dwells in Redmond) is that we ignore the new evil RFCs. Nothing in that license says they can revoke the right to redistribute the existing RFCs or that a new entity can't issue new ones. Although to avoid confusion a new entity would probably want to use a different naming scheme.

The whole point of the RFCs and their license terms is that an RFC, once issued, is immutable. Nobody, not even the Internet Society changes an RFC. They don't have version numbers. To change one they issue a new RFC with a seperate number. That is the point behind that bit about copying "... except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards..." which means you can block quote from an older RFC as needed in the writing of a new RFC.

So you CAN create derivitive works from an RFC, so long as you change the name. And that is totally reasonable because even if the license techically permitted it, to change a work and not rename it is just wrong. You don't see people going to Project Guttenburg, making changes to classic works and redistributing them under the original name.

Just another example of Debian trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. Sometimes when they make a stand on a license (Pine for example) they have a point but sometimes, like this case, the only point is on someone's head. :)

(Log in to post comments)

RFCs - insufficiently free?

Posted Jul 17, 2003 5:47 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

> So you CAN create derivitive works from an RFC, so long as you change the name.

Except you can't. The license doesn't give you that right. The only way you can develop new "Internet standards" as per their definition is through them.

RFCs - insufficiently free?

Posted Jul 28, 2003 20:03 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

This is the reply that nails the problem. I knew that if I looked, I'd find one, and thereby be spared the hassle of writing my own. :-)

They are *standards documents*. Of course they have to be immutable. But no one says -- so far as *I* can see, that you can't lift parts out for other uses, nor that you couldn't issue some derivative document *with a different name or identifier* that said something slightly different.

"More Catholic than the Pope" says it pretty well, IMPO.

But hell, what do I know.

[Repetitive smart-alec catch phrase goes here.]