Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Simon Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:2.3.1. Drafts Proposals for standardisation are made as Internet Drafts. These documents must be compliant with all of the provisions of the IETF's Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts [ID-Guide] and the documents it references. Note that it is not permissible for documents that wish to progress through the AFS standardisation process to prohibit modification or derivative works, or to bar publication as an RFC. Drafts should be named as individual contributions, and contain the string afs3-stds within their name.I'd like us to specifically call out the following statement from the Copyrights and Patent Rights in RFCs document on the RFC Editor site and specifically state that this requirement applies to all Internet Drafts submitted as part of this process as well: For independent RFC submissions, however, the RFC Editor requires that authors grant unlimited permission for derivative works, with appropriate credits and citations.In re-reading this, the difference between my statement and Simon's isn't clear if you've not previously dove into this particular boondoggle. The problem is this portion of BCP 78: The IETF needs to be able to evolve IETF Documents in response to experience gained in the deployment of the technologies described in such IETF Documents, to incorporate developments in research and to react to changing conditions on the Internet and other IP networks. In order to do this the IETF must be able to produce derivatives of its documents; thus the IETF must obtain the right from Contributors to produce derivative works. Note though that the IETF only requires this right for the production of derivative works within the IETF Standards Process. The IETF does not need, nor does it obtain, the right to let derivative works be created outside of the IETF Standards Process other than as noted in Section 3.3 (E). (Said section deals with code excerpts.) All of the restrictions imposed by the IETF, apart from the independent publication requirements for RFCs, only require derivative works be possible for the IETF. Apart from the many other problems with this position, this is insufficient for our purposes. We need the standardization documents to be covered under a typical free license that doesn't put limitations on to whom they are granting a license for reproduction, redistribution, and derivatve works (and redistribution thereof). The Internet Draft submissions guidelines even with the above caveat aren't obviously sufficient; they could be read as only requiring that one not prohibit all derivative works, not that one grant a license for derivative works to everyone irrespective of their affiliation with the IETF.
This is fine except that an Independent Submission to the RFC Editor is not an IETF document and BCP 78 does not apply. All Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor for publication include an explicit statement that the document is not an IETF Document. All of the requirements and specifications governing the Independent Submission process is instead described in RFC 4846.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4846.txtThe normative reference to BCP 78 in that document is there because the relevant material from BCP 78 that applies to the Independent Submission process was copied from BCP 78. Note the requirements in Section 8 that assign rights not just to the RFC Editor but to the community.
Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
