#1167 Excerpt labelling

Based on discussion in Dallas...

I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in Joel's
draft):

- All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at least the
RFC number 
or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in the context of
the publication.

- For text that is modified from its original, the words
"based on" or 
an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it MUST be
made clear 
that the text is not the original text.

Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what modified
texts are 
permitted - just how they're labelled....

Comments?


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas...
>
> I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in
Joel's draft):
>
> - All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at
least the RFC
> number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in the
context of the
> publication.
>
> - For text that is modified from its original, the
words "based on" or
> an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it MUST
be made clear
> that the text is not the original text.
>
> Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what modified
texts are
> permitted - just how they're labelled....
>
> Comments?

I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document that
invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?

   If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right
to make
   modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
   than translations), one of the two of the following
notices may be
   included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
   included in a published RFC:
...
   b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
      not be created."

I'm assuming here, which I believe is correct, that an
"excerpt" is in
general a "derivative work".

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas...
>
> I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in
Joel's draft):
>
> - All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at
least the RFC
> number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in the
context of the
> publication.
>
> - For text that is modified from its original, the
words "based on" or
> an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it MUST
be made clear
> that the text is not the original text.
>
> Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what modified
texts are
> permitted - just how they're labelled....
>
> Comments?

I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document that
invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?

   If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right
to make
   modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
   than translations), one of the two of the following
notices may be
   included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
   included in a published RFC:
...
   b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
      not be created."

I'm assuming here, which I believe is correct, that an
"excerpt" is in
general a "derivative work".

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas...
>
> I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in
Joel's draft):
>
> - All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at
least the RFC
> number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in the
context of the
> publication.
>
> - For text that is modified from its original, the
words "based on" or
> an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it MUST
be made clear
> that the text is not the original text.
>
> Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what modified
texts are
> permitted - just how they're labelled....
>
> Comments?

I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document that
invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?

   If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right
to make
   modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
   than translations), one of the two of the following
notices may be
   included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
   included in a published RFC:
...
   b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
      not be created."

I'm assuming here, which I believe is correct, that an
"excerpt" is in
general a "derivative work".

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas...
>
> I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in
Joel's draft):
>
> - All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at
least the RFC
> number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in the
context of the
> publication.
>
> - For text that is modified from its original, the
words "based on" or
> an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it MUST
be made clear
> that the text is not the original text.
>
> Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what modified
texts are
> permitted - just how they're labelled....
>
> Comments?

I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document that
invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?

   If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right
to make
   modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
   than translations), one of the two of the following
notices may be
   included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
   included in a published RFC:
...
   b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
      not be created."

I'm assuming here, which I believe is correct, that an
"excerpt" is in
general a "derivative work".

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas...
>
> I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in
Joel's draft):
>
> - All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at
least the RFC
> number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in the
context of the
> publication.
>
> - For text that is modified from its original, the
words "based on" or
> an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it MUST
be made clear
> that the text is not the original text.
>
> Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what modified
texts are
> permitted - just how they're labelled....
>
> Comments?

I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document that
invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?

   If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right
to make
   modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
   than translations), one of the two of the following
notices may be
   included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
   included in a published RFC:
...
   b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
      not be created."

I'm assuming here, which I believe is correct, that an
"excerpt" is in
general a "derivative work".

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
> 
> 
>>Based on discussion in Dallas...
>>
>>I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying (in
Joel's draft):
>>
>>- All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source - at
least the RFC
>>number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable in
the context of the
>>publication.
>>
>>- For text that is modified from its original, the
words "based on" or
>>an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label - it
MUST be made clear
>>that the text is not the original text.
>>
>>Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what
modified texts are
>>permitted - just how they're labelled....
>>
>>Comments?
> 
> 
> I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document that
> invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?
> 
>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's
right to make
>    modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
>    than translations), one of the two of the following
notices may be
>    included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
>    included in a published RFC:
> ...
>    b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
>       not be created."

Ah, but then it isn't what I think of as an IETF RFC. So I
suspect that
the IETF doesn't care. The RFC Editor may care, but that is
a separate
issue.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Brian E Carpenter <brczurich.ibm.com> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Based on discussion in Dallas...
>>>
>>>I suggest that we resolve this ticket by saying
(in Joel's draft):
>>>
>>>- All excerpts SHOULD be labelled with source -
at least the RFC
>>>number or draft name - unless it's unreasonable
in the context of the
>>>publication.
>>>
>>>- For text that is modified from its original,
the words "based on" or
>>>an equivalent SHOULD be included in the label -
it MUST be made clear
>>>that the text is not the original text.
>>>
>>>Resolution of this issue does NOT resolve what
modified texts are
>>>permitted - just how they're labelled....
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>
>> I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with
a document that
>> invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?
>>
>>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the
IETF's right to make
>>    modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution (other
>>    than translations), one of the two of the
following notices may be
>>    included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
>>    included in a published RFC:
>> ...
>>    b. "This document may not be modified, and
derivative works of it may
>>       not be created."
>
> Ah, but then it isn't what I think of as an IETF RFC.
So I suspect that
> the IETF doesn't care.

Ah, yes, right.

However, RFC 3978 does not seem to completely preclude IETF
RFC's from
carrying those notices:

   These notices may not be used with any standards-track
document or
   with most working group documents, except as discussed in
Section 7.3
   below, since the IETF must retain change control over its
documents
   and the ability to augment, clarify and enhance the
original IETF
   Contribution in accordance with the IETF Standards
Process.

It says nothing about documents with status INFORMATIONAL.

I cannot find any published RFC that invoke 5.2 b)...

This may be a corner-case now, and might not be worth
spending more
time on.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg