[rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Sep 14 13:16:25 PDT 2009
The basic answer to this reasonable quesiton is - no can do.
This is admittedly a simplification. We could create a multiplicity of
rules, for every imaginable case. And then no one would understand what
So, the assumption is that the normal case is unlimited derivative
works. For special cases, the ISE will allow "no derivative works." If
you really are in the special corner case of wanting an Independent
Stream RFC, needing a no-derivative-works rights grant with sufficient
strength that you can convince the ISE that you really do need it), and
wanting to allow people to work with the code, put a copy of the code
somewhere else. That is not a good answer. But the alternative is a
Dave Thaler wrote:
> I have read and support draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt
> I have one question for the authors, which is regarding the last
> two paragraphs of section 3.
> This permits "unlimited derivative works" and "no derivative
> works". What if authors want "no derivative works" except that
> any Code Components can be used?
> The draft currently says:
>> Note also that this unlimited derivative works policy applies to all
>> parts of an Independent Stream document, including any code.
>> Therefore, no separate licensing procedure is required for extracting
>> and adapting code that is contained in an Independent Stream
> The last sentence in the quoted paragraph above can be read as
> saying that "no derivative works" means there is no possibility
> for using code contained in a "no derivative works" RFC either.
> Suggest swapping the order of the above paragraph and the one
> that precedes it (about the "no derivative works" possibility),
> and adding clarifying text that states whether a licensing
> procedure for code is required in the "no derivative works" case.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-
>> bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:48 PM
>> To: Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream
>> I also support it. Let's see if we can get this resolved quickly.
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-09-11 14:29, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> Even that needs some perception of community consensus, though.
>>>> Hopefully, we can make equally rapid progress in a forward gear.
>>> Namely, by discussing draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt
>>> I support it.
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest