Brian E Carpenter <brc zurich.ibm.com> writes:
> Switched to a more relevant list, where this horse has
> been thoroughly flogged already:
Btw, to move closer to a settling the issue, it would be
useful to add
more information to the issue tracker:
https:
//rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1339
Relevant information would include statements by Scott
Bradner:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00
"Section 3.3(a)(E) of RFC 3667 [RFC 3667] requires
that the author(s)
of IETF contributions grant the IETF the right to make
and use
certain types of extracts of the contributions for
purposes not
limited to the IETF standards process. When I wrote that
section I
intended that to mean that anyone could make such
extracts but the
wording I used limited the permission to the IETF. This
document
tries to fix the words to match my intent."
That confirm that I interpret the wordings of RFC 3978 the
same as
Scott Bradner. I agree that the intention wasn't the same
as the
wording, and that we should fix that.
Debian interpret the BCP 78 license as non-free:
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentati
on
http://bugs.debian.org/
199810
As a consequence, Debian do not include RFCs (or,
supposedly, material
derived from RFCs) in their distribution.
I recall receiving replies from the FSF legal department
regarding the
RFC 2026 license, and possibly also the RFC 3978 license,
that may be
relevant. If there is genuine interest, I could dig it up.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|