[rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Sep 14 16:13:08 PDT 2009
It will be in the boilerplate. Which we will leave to the trustees, and
their legal adviser, to develop.
Fred Baker wrote:
> OK. Where is the fact that it has no-d-r status recorded?
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> We (the RFC community) have published "No Derivative Works" RFCs
>> before. These have been used, for example, to publish standards from
>> other bodies where they were making the material available to us, but
>> we did not have the right to further evolve the standard.
>> Editorial processing (such as book editors and the ISE / RFC
>> Production house perform) are not usually considered derivative
>> works. (I am sure someone can come up with a counter-example.) In
>> this case, the thesis is that the author, who has the rights, is
>> requesting RFC Publication in the Independent Stream. So we clearly
>> have the right to perform that publication. However, they are not
>> allowing us to give anyone else rights to modify the document.
>> Fred Baker wrote:
>>> I have read your draft, and I have a question.
>>> I have in the past presumed that "no derivative works" implied that
>>> an internet draft could not be published as an RFC, as an RFC is
>>> itself a derivative work. A case in which I used that reasoning
>>> related to the one draft in which I have ever used that status - one
>>> of the inputs to the SAVI working group. I was asked to describe
>>> what Cisco did in a particular case, and as the working group seemed
>>> very unwilling to read Cisco's web page on the topic, I copied the
>>> Cisco web page text into a no-d-r draft. My viewpoint was (and is)
>>> that even if the working group wanted to standardize exactly what
>>> Cisco had done, it should do so as "this is what the working group
>>> decided", not "fine, do what Cisco does, everyone else is".
>>> What this draft suggests to me is that the RFC *should* be
>>> published, and that somehow those rights or lack of them should be
>>> recorded in or recorded regarding the RFC.
>>> Help me here? Do I misunderstand the meaning of "no derivative works"?
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest