Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

["J.D. Falk" <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> On 05/Oct/11 20:22, SM wrote:
>> The Abstract mentions that:
>> 
>>  "While not originally written as an Internet Draft, it has been
>>   contributed to the IETF standards repository in order to make it
>>   easier to incorporate this material into IETF work."
>> 
>> The "no derivative" clause makes it impossible to incorporate the
>> material in this draft in any IETF work.  The restriction is not
>> called out correctly in draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.
> 
> IANAL, but my understanding is that one will be able to cite MAAWG's
> RFC in other works, thereby /using/ those statements without actually
> incorporating protected material literally.  Copyright should protect
> the wording, not the technique.  Taking up terminology and quoting
> small snippets of text should be fair use:  J.D. himself, wearing a
> IETF hat, is drafting a Standard Track I-D (marf-as) that uses the
> CFBL BCP that way.

Yep.  A reference to a work is not a derivative of that work.

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions