Web lists-archives.com

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch




Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and found
>> the files below in the stretch suite.  Compare earlier work here [1].
>
> Instead of trying to get standards documents out of Debian, I'd rather
> see effort invested in working on solutions to get Debian able to
> include them.

Me too, but I don't believe the efforts are mutually exclusive.  I spent
time to work towards that goal ten years ago -- see
http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ -- however that effort ultimately
failed, although there were partial success in making people aware of
the issue and the IETF Trusts adoption of the BSD license for
code-components of RFCs.  I'd also like to think that I had something to
do with the Unicode consortium changed their license when a similar
concern was brought up with them.

> Standards are important to our industry, yet Debian is not able to
> include their works because modification is not allowed without going
> through the standards body. I don't think that is entirely unacceptable,
> although I acknowledge that certain standards bodies can be difficult or
> unpleasant to work with.
>
> I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to allow
> their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows
> modification when changing the name or namespace for schemas and the like.
>
> With a DFSG compromise for standards we have better position to
> negotiate with the standards bodies to use compatible terms for their
> standards works. Instead of our current position that their works are
> not acceptable for Debian.

Debian has already compromised on non-free material (the contrib and
non-free sections).  I don't think further compromisation is beneficial.
There are many good proprietary software out there too, but we aren't
including them either.  The primary motivation for me to work on Debian
is the projects' commitment to free software.  Btw, the license for RFCs
does not fulfil your critera above.

Thanks,
/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature