Re: Rights in early RFCs

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 15 June 2019 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A9F1200B9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=bapKTYUo; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=f5qDbbcG
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AXlnpRom33XV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EFD112004A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6819 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2019 19:08:34 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=1a9f.5d054232.k1906; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=7svUf/FikQM14gH2GNB7DyS+C/EybY/0wCC+/LPkKeQ=; b=bapKTYUoEupncHPYZEAm4F87cgYs1DVu/TEkARVw3d/txd0r/yS/dmAER96GYhYe306bG4lPlC8qRSoSUMnKzABO8VdYu+YB87BBFGFOkjqKP5r+41U2zcKiiHOfvEfvU9vELMRLQpE5xNZT5UObWjH9so7u+z8JweXoacoa0omev2wWU5DOQYhSPriL5HhgARyovUR/PWSCQYCwjBoSerfjmyluOvkNh4Pfsk03lwDRDGwPsPKX5ctCD+iNTd65
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=1a9f.5d054232.k1906; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=7svUf/FikQM14gH2GNB7DyS+C/EybY/0wCC+/LPkKeQ=; b=f5qDbbcGYTzldCsSB95t7rqWe171dHztbvSeSJ6+7+6A3IYyBVmXNUHLgHn6wdLVj3QyzRSqfoWRe7sjk0nQw5anvCdlYWTgwB5BHuvtRBX23ntI1IXpAtmIRd07fZuMu1bi2Q7ArtdfS5fd12IUxNMV/nerEgwUfMVCxRBV/g/0t5x1wuTo32AfvzA9efFH0vIcNfvLaUk7doIzDWPKrjrkvR62VqLRQQ3hLIzd/GMY4bMX//BHYyJZVh3cUk1y
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 15 Jun 2019 19:08:34 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id EFAA0201593E4E; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:08:33 -0400
Message-Id: <20190615190833.EFAA0201593E4E@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rights in early RFCs
In-Reply-To: <669e673a-5c39-5dcb-bebc-585bbf31a988@meetinghouse.net>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OsQ4_gGbEAVN9RMWSLicAasMwy8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:08:38 -0000

In article <669e673a-5c39-5dcb-bebc-585bbf31a988@meetinghouse.net> you write:
>> to publish a spec for how to do $foo over the Internet. Their spec 
>> quotes small parts of various RFCs to make the requirements clear for 
>> the vendors who will implement $foo because those vendors do not 
>> normally use IETF standards. ...

>That would seem to fall under fair use.  How could quoting a spec NOT be 
>considered fair use.

A) Fair use is what a US court says it is.  The law provides factors
for courts to weigh but no bright line rules.  Anyone who says that a
particular usage definitely is or isn't fair use without a court
decision to back it up doesn't understand the law.

B) Court decisions have been all over the place.  In one extreme case,
use of a single sentence was found to be infringing.  (It was from a
medical text, quoted in a cigarette ad.)

C) Copyright litigation is fantastically expensive, and in the U.S.,
even if you win, you usually still have to pay your own costs.  Don't
go there.

D) Fair use only applies in the U.S.  Some other countries have Fair
Dealing, but the rules are different, so if something is fair use in
the US, that doesn't mean it's fair dealing elsewhere.  Most other
countries also have moral rights which further constrain what you
can quote without permission.

It's not unreasonable for an SDO to want clear permission about what
it uses.

R's,
John