This page summarizes the current rules governing RFC copyrights and
dislaimers on patent ("Intellectual Property") rights.
A text version of this page is available from:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/copyright.txt.
Earlier Copyright pages:
BCP 78
(RFC 3978) specifies the copyright rules applicable to RFCs,
aligning these rules with modern copyright law. The rules are
generally intended to safeguard the integrity, future availability, and
usefulness of published RFCs but continue the historical policy of free
and open distribution and reuse of RFCs, to the extent possible.
As explained in BCP 78, there are two classes of RFCs: IETF submissions
and RFC Editor ("independent") submissions. The rules for copyrights
on IETF submissions are fully defined in BCP 78, but some aspects of
these rules are left for the RFC Editor to define for independent
submissions. There is really only one essential difference: the
freedom to create derivative works; see below.
The following rules control the reproduction of RFCs by third parties:
1a. Copying for free redistribution is allowed and encouraged. [2]
1b. Inclusion of RFC copies within other documents or collections
that are distributed for a fee is allowed. [3]
Translation and publication of an entire RFC into another language
is allowed.
Changing format, font, etc. is allowed only with permission of
the author(s). With this permission, rule 1. applies.
NOTES:
[1] "Entire" includes all the copyright and IPR boilerplate.
[2] This case permits the present mirroring of RFCs on many
web sites.
[3] Anyone can take some RFCs, put them in a book, copyright the
book, and sell it. This in no way inhibits anyone else from
doing the same thing, or inhibits any other distribution of
the RFCs.
Section 3.3 of BCP 78 specifies a restricted allowance for derivative
works from RFCs that were IETF submissions. An author of one of these
RFCs is required only to permit derivative works for use within the
IETF standards process (although an author is free to permit more
general usage). This means, for example, that it may not be
permissible for a third party to extract text from an IETF submission
RFC for use in a "man" page or other system documentation, even if
credit is given.
For independent RFC submissions, however, the RFC Editor requires that
authors grant unlimited permission for derivative works, with
appropriate credits and citations. In summary:
Since many Internet Drafts (I-Ds) represent work in progress, I-D
authors sometimes want to prevent all preparation of derivative works
based on their documents. Although Section 5.2a of BCP 78 specifies "no
derivative works" (NDW) boilerplate that may be included in an I-D,
IETF rules generally do not allow NDW boilerplate in
documents used in the Internet Standards process (see Section 7.3 of
BCP 78).
Use of NDW boilerplate in an independent submission must be approved by
the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will generally allow use of NDW
boilerplate only for publication of proprietary protocols or the
publication of specifications developed by other standards
organizations, as discussed in Section 7.3 of BCP 78.
BCP 79 governs issues concerning possible intellectual property
described in RFCs. An IETF submission will include a "Disclaimer of
validity" [BCP 79 Section 5] boilerplate. For RFC Editor submissions,
BCP 79 requires this boilerplate if IPR has previously been disclosed
for this RFC; however, the RFC Editor's policy is to always include
this boilerplate. It may be omitted from a independent submission only
when it is clear from the nature of the RFC contents that no
intellectual property rights could be claimed.
Note also that an RFC should not contain a notice of the
existence of specific relevant intellectual property (patents, etc.).
(This point is unclear in BCP 79, but the RFC Editor has been informed
that the IPR Working Group is quite clear about it.)
The normal last-page boilerplate in an RFC
Finally, the RFC Editor will add its own acknowledgment of
funding from the Internet Society at the end of the RFC.
It is coordinated with the IETF documents "IETF
Rights in Contributions", BCP 78/RFC 3978 and
"Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79/RFC
3979. These documents are the result of a recent effort by the IPR
Working Group of the IETF working group of the IETF, replacing earlier
versions BCP 78/RFC 3667 and BCP 79/RFC 3668
Topics:
Reproduction Rules
Note: In case (1b), it is a courtesy to ask the RFC author(s) and
to provide a copy of the final document or collection.
It is courtesy to inform the RFC author(s) of such translation.
This is what the lawyers call "preparation of derivative
works". The rules are shown below.
Derivative Works
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Boilerplate Within I-Ds and RFCs
Go back to top of page.
Last modified 1Mar05.