Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I thought that wide replication of the series was the whole > point. If there are issues, I thought they had to do with derivative > works. For example, a particularly risk-averse author of a new > book might query whether "publication of 3 random pages from each > RFC" falls within the scope of allowable actions.
It's pretty clear/accepted that RFCs can be copied/reproduced freely _in their entirety_, at least those that say "distribution unlimited". What is much less clear is the issues surrounding excerpts, or derivative works. The original query pretty clearly asked/asserted whether older RFCs were "in the public domain". That's pretty far removed from "republication in their entirety". > I would take the position that checking with authors is not necessary > because permission has already been granted for replication of unmodified > RFCs. It would not seem a stretch for the IETF chair, the IAB, and > the RFC Editor to take a similar position. IANAL, but if you've followed discussions in places like the IPR WG, it doesn't take much to conclude that this is a complicated space in which rules interpreted by real lawyers play a big role. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
