Take a look at Section 5.4 of RFC 1602, which redefined
the IETF's IP process originally set forth in RFC 1310:
5.4. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the wide
dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to establish
specific understandings concerning any copyrights, patents, patent
applications, or other rights in the contribution. The procedures
set forth in this section apply to contributions submitted after 1
April 1994. For Internet standards documents published before
this date (the RFC series has been published continuously since
April 1969), information on rights and permissions must be sought
directly from persons claiming rights therein.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Carl Malamud
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Copyright status of early RFCs
Carl Malamud wrote:
> John and Brian -
>
> My jaw dropped when I saw this query come through.
>
> I thought that wide replication of the series was the whole
> point.
It is. And I can tell you that the IETF Trust's firm intention
is to maintain this. But the IETF, and the Trust on behalf of the
IETF, can't convey rights it doesn't own, and the question was
about early RFCs. The IETF is a mere 20 years old, younger than
RFC 791 for example. (BTW we should have celebrated the 25th
anniversary of that, I think.)
> 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.
>
> 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.
But we are not lawyers. The legal advice has consistently been
to also check with the original authors. That's all I can tell you.
> If a position is taken to the contrary, I would be more than happy
> to undertake the publishing project and invite the relevant parties
> to bring legal action
I'd guess that for all the RFCs that carry the magic words "Distribution
of this memo is unlimited" you'd be on fairly safe ground. But those
words aren't in the early RFCs.
Brian
> Carl
>
>
>>John,
>>
>>At the moment there has been no transfer of rights in the early
>>RFCs to the IETF Trust, so I think you need to ask the
>>RFC Editor, or simply look at
>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.23Jan01.html
>>
>>IANAL, but I have been told that in any case it is necessary
>>to check with the original authors.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>John Levine wrote:
>>
>>>A friend of mine wants to include copies of some early RFCs in a book.
>>>
>>>My understanding is that anything published before 1976 without a
>>>copyright notice, which would presumably include RFCs up through about
>>>number 700, is in the public domain.
>>>
>>>Does the IETF or IAB or RFC Editor take a position on this?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>>>Dummies",
>>>Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
>>>"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ietf mailing list
>>>[email protected]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ietf mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
