[rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream

[Joel M. Halpern]

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 
applies whn.

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 
nightmare.

Yours,
Joel

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
>> document.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Dave
> 
>> -----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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>   Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>