| |||||||||||
RFCs - insufficiently free?RFCs - insufficiently free?Posted Jul 17, 2003 21:31 UTC (Thu) by southey (subscriber, #9466)In reply to: RFCs - insufficiently free? by Peter Parent article: RFCs - insufficiently free? Cutting and pasting is just plain plagiarism! A new RFC means that that old one is wrong so you just end up copying rubbish. If you want a variant then just write the variation - far better than reading a new standard to find that it is not new. If any person can change the standard at whim then it is no longer a standard. This is one of places that Debian is screwed up - the second is that they become non-free because they require 'free' software. Really they need to avoid the word 'free' period.
(Log in to post comments)
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 17, 2003 22:58 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Do I understand correctly that you are saying that all corrections meanthrowing out the original work? I guess you don't believe in software patches or book editors.
RFCs - insufficiently free? Posted Jul 17, 2003 23:48 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] > Cutting and pasting is just plain plagiarism!It is not plagiarism if the source is acknowledged. > A new RFC means that that old one is wrong so you just ?? > If any person can change the standard at whim then it This is a confusion I have seen again and again. Debian's
|
|||||||||||