MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> c. maybe it rfc releated and need waiting for RFC license discussion (i >> dont know the status of it)? > > The RFC copyright licence problems have been discussed. See > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/threads.html#00151 > for one possibly relevant thread (anyone got a better link?)
One is <http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/>. I'm participating in the IPR WG within IETF to try to change this. As part of this, it has been clarified that the copyright notice in RFC is not really on the text in the RFC, but on auxilliary parts (boilerplate) and the collective work formed by many people participating in producing the document (in those cases where actually many people participated). See the following response from IETF's lawyer: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg03729.html I surveyed a couple of other source packages in Debian, and the ISOC copyright and this license is present in some of them (e.g., the krb5 source package). Perhaps we should start to look through all source packages, and remove all traces of RFC material. However, alternatively, you could ask the author of that RFC if he would be willing to re-license the material under some other license. He has the right to do this. This is the procedure I'm following for the Shishi packages, which uses the Kerberos V5 ASN.1 schema from RFC 4120. If someone works in an organization that is active in the IETF, getting them to participate in the discussion in the IPR WG, and talk to the leadership in that area and explain that this is a serious problem, that would be useful. Regards, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
