Re: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-author-contributors-00 (and -rfc-extracts)

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>>>1. I assume that this cannot be made retroactive, so I think the final text will
>>>need a few words that make it clear that it does not purport to change the
>>>permissions for all past RFCs.
>> Copying conditions on RFCs have been changed retroactively before.
>> I
>> asked the RFC editor under what license RFC 1510 was published under,
>> and they replied saying it was RFC 2026.  If that change was done
>> properly, I don't see why a similar change cannot done be done again.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be interested to hear what a copyright lawyer
> thinks about this.

So do I.  I have raised this concern, but nobody has responded.

Is nobody who was involved in re-licensing the old RFCs reading this
list?

See <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/2526> for things that
would be useful to address.

>> However, the current license disallow actions that I used to be
>> permitted to do, like incorporating part of RFC 1510 in my product.
>
> And it's exactly that sort of thing we need to fix.

Thanks for confirming that view.  When I read the newly proposed
updates, they make me wonder whether the IETF is moving in the right
direction or not.

>> I'd rather not see licenses be changed on existing documents.
>
> You mean not changed for the worse, presumably :-)

Oops, right.  Perhaps I just anticipated that any change in this area
were going to be for the worse, based on the traffic here...

Of course, I believe the best would be if we could get a license that
permitted free use (including modifications) of all RFCs.

Regards,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg