[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Fri Jun 1 08:49:22 PDT 2012


> However right now xml2rfc produces the copyright text from document metadata, 
> it's not included in the source file. (I believe it's the right approach 
> because it avoids people messing with the text)

True, but so what?  You give the court an output format with the 
appropriate copyright text.  There's no question about what text matches 
what metadata.

I don't recall any case in which the copyright text was of any interest to 
a court.  They're about whether a party in a patent or trade secret suit 
implemented an RFC-defined standard, thereby affecting the value or 
validity of an asserted patent or alleged trade secret.  What's relevant 
is the contents of the RFC, not the boilerplate.

Having been involved in a few copyright suits, I would be astonished if 
there were ever one related to any RFC's copyright text.  The costs would 
be too high, the potential gain too low.  (This excludes an allegation 
that an RFC stole text from a non-RFC source, something no amount of 
copyright text could fix.)

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list