>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Bailie >Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:38 AM >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > You might check this but I believe that the Copyright convention > > specifically > > excepts "specifications" from copyright coverage. I think >there's some > > other > > classes of original work that fall under this. How about simply > > rewriting the > > ITEF license to designate any RFC as the complete RFC is a >specification, > > and therefore uncopyrightable. > >I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly believe under the Berne >convention RFCs have copyright. The technical details described >in an RFC may be protected by other IP laws, such as patent law >for example, if the originator chose to patent those details, but >the text of the RFC document itself, describing those details, is >an original composition which satisfies the terms of the >convention. The only means of rescinding copyright is for the >copyright owner to explicitly place the work into the public >domain. >
Which is what applying an IETF RFC license that designates the ENTIRE rfc as a SPECIFICATION would do so! Sheesh! >Simon's proposed license seems reasonable to me. Except that it is untried in a court of law. If the author of an RFC simply designates the entire RFC as a specification, by using the IETF license that states "this entire document is a specification" then you have an easy way to play within the already established international understandings of what a specification is. Just because the GNU did it with their own license doesen't mean that this is a good way to go. Ted _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"