[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.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 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 an  internet draft could not be published as an RFC, as an RFC is 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
>>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list