Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

[Robin Cover <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> [e-mail] (Scott Bradner) writes:
> > I've just published draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt 
> > this ID addresses the issues of extracting RFCs and derivative works

> Re 3: The fact that W3C, ITU etc behave similar to IETF is not a
> convincing argument to me.  The Unicode Consortium permit modified
> versions of their standards to be published (again, kudos to them!),
> see <http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html>.

For what it's worth, OASIS recently updated its IPR policy [1].  The
standard notice for copyright (including derivative works based
upon OASIS specifications) is as follows:

=============
Any document produced by an OASIS Technical Committee shall
include the following notices (bracketed language, other than
the date, need only appear in specification documents): 

Copyright (c) OASIS Open 2005. All Rights Reserved. 

All capitalized terms in the following text have the meanings
assigned to them in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights
Policy (the "OASIS IPR Policy"). The full Policy may be found
at the OASIS website.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without
restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright
notice and this section are included on all such copies and
derivative works. However, this document itself may not be
modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice
or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of
developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS
Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to
copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be
followed) or as required to translate it into languages other
than English. 

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

========================

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php


 
> Re 3.2.1: I don't buy that this will create any significant confusion.
> I think you need to show that confusion exists in other areas where
> modified derived works are permitted.  I.e., for Unicode or for RFCs
> before RFC 2026.  I further think that Larry Rosen's suggestion is too
> complex and too costly to implement for the IETF.
> 
> Re 3.2.2: Working groups typically close after they are done with a
> core specification.  Further, WGs are not required to review or help
> anyone modify the product of a WG.  Thus, I challenge that the "best
> place" to extend a standard is within the WG that created it.  One of
> my examples has been StringPrep/IDN, that WG doesn't exist any more.
> 
> Re the second 3.2.2 (the section numbering seem off): This appear to
> be the same argument as 3.2.1, i.e., that permitting modified
> documents would create confusion or problems.
> 
> Re 3.2.3: The requirement to be able to modify documents come from
> free software developers like myself.  It may be the case that the
> open source community do not need this requirement, but I don't see
> the relevance.  Further, the argument that the free software community
> could come to the IETF if they want to extend standards is weak: there
> is nothing that guarantee that the IETF will be around forever or that
> it will welcome the free software community.  It must be possible to
> modify free software without talking to the IETF about it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 

-- 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg