Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: MIB copyright statement

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Les Bell wrote:
> So you [meaning Bert Wijnen and Scott Bradner] are saying the
> MODULE-IDENTITY should include the following copyright statement:
> 
>     "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This version of
>      this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for
>      full legal notices."
> 
> But Mike's point was that the IEEE 802.1 is not assigning copyright
> to anyone else, so "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003)." is
> misleading.

Exactly.

> Would it not be more correct to say:
> 
>     "Copyright (C) The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
>      Engineers, Inc. (2003). This version of this MIB module is
>      part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."
> 
> or just:
> 
>     "This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx;
>      see the RFC itself for full legal notices."

The latter would probably be better, but as I said before, this
is the IEEE's MIB module -- we are just republishing it in an
informational RFC to make it more readily accessible -- and so
I think this is really the IEEE's call.

In an earlier message, Les asked:
> Are there any guidelines on the Full Copyright statement that
> should be applied to this document, which re-publishes an
> external document. I should probably ask the IEEE 802.1 WG chair
> for suitable text.

I don't know of any formal guidelines in a BCP document or such,
but there have been cases in the past where standards developed
by other bodies have been republished in informational RFCs.  A
recent example is RFC 3394, Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Key Wrap Algorithm.  Here is its Full Copyright Statement:

 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
 are included on all such copies.  However, this document itself may
 not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
 or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
 organizations, except as required to translate it into languages
 other than English.

 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Note the absence of permissions to make derivative works.  The same
(or very similar) language appears in RFCs 2985 and 2986.

In the present case it might be appropriate to have a dual IEEE/ISOC
copyright (for the whole document, not the MIB module -- I think
that the MIB module copyright probably belongs to the IEEE alone).

In any case, please be sure to take note of the following admonition
in draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt:

 A specific request from the IAB is required before the RFC Editor
 can include a dual copyright, or for any other variation of the
 standard ISOC copyright notice.

I think that applies to the RFC3394-type notice as well.

Regards,

Mike Heard

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib