Re: IETF Trust FAQ

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

> Switched to a more relevant list, where this horse has
> been thoroughly flogged already:

Btw, to move closer to a settling the issue, it would be useful to add
more information to the issue tracker:

https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1339

Relevant information would include statements by Scott Bradner:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00

   "Section 3.3(a)(E) of RFC 3667 [RFC 3667] requires that the author(s)
   of IETF contributions grant the IETF the right to make and use
   certain types of extracts of the contributions for purposes not
   limited to the IETF standards process.  When I wrote that section I
   intended that to mean that anyone could make such extracts but the
   wording I used limited the permission to the IETF.  This document
   tries to fix the words to match my intent."

That confirm that I interpret the wordings of RFC 3978 the same as
Scott Bradner.  I agree that the intention wasn't the same as the
wording, and that we should fix that.

Debian interpret the BCP 78 license as non-free:

http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation
http://bugs.debian.org/199810

As a consequence, Debian do not include RFCs (or, supposedly, material
derived from RFCs) in their distribution.

I recall receiving replies from the FSF legal department regarding the
RFC 2026 license, and possibly also the RFC 3978 license, that may be
relevant.  If there is genuine interest, I could dig it up.

/Simon

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