"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <flu...@cisco.com> writes: > I was only peripherally involved in this and don't know all the in's > and outs of this but let me try and provide a bit of information and > hopefully someone from the IETF Trust or RFC Editor can correct me > where I am wrong.
Thanks. Input from members of the Trust, if they were involved, would be appreciated. > The internet draft was done with the normal boiler plate that granted > a bunch of rights to the IETF Trust. There was also text in the draft > where the authors granted additional rights. The trust normally > publishes the RFC with about the same license that is used in the > draft however the Trust retains the rights to do whatever they want > within the range of the license granted to them in the draft. In this > case, the RFC was published with slightly different boiler plate than > what was in draft. That is not the case, draft -16 had the same license. > So no, I don't think the policy has changed, and no I don't think this > was a mistake. I think the RFC Editor working with the IETF Trust and > IETF legal advice made this change. My understanding of the reasons > for the change was something like this makes it easier for some linux > distribution to include the RFC with their distribution or > something. I don't believe that is the case here. The license used is the same as normal license, only the copyright header is different. Distributions rarely cares who the copyright holder is. IETF rules says additional copyright notices aren't permitted. /Simon > Keep in mind this is a weird RFC in that it includes a huge amount of > normative code in the RFC. > > Hope this helps - and amazed anyone noticed. > > Cullen > > PS - I may have this all wrong - I'm not the person that knows but I > hope that provides some help. > On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > >> All, >> >> I noticed that the recent RFC 6716 contains some reference code that >> contain the copyright and licenses notice reproduced below. The IETF >> TLP [1] mandates a certain form of copyright notices and the TLP does >> not, as far as I can see, permit varying the boiler plate in any way. >> Note that both companies and organisations are mentioned in the >> copyright notice in RFC 6716, besides individuals. >> >> Does this indicate a policy change, a mistake with that document, or >> something else? >> >> Btw, kudos to the RFC 6716 authors for shipping reference code! I hope >> this will establish a best practice for standards in the future. >> >> /Simon >> >> [1] >> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm >> >> Copyright 1994-2011 IETF Trust, Xiph.Org, Skype Limited, Octasic, >> Jean-Marc Valin, Timothy B. Terriberry, >> CSIRO, Gregory Maxwell, Mark Borgerding, >> Erik de Castro Lopo. All rights reserved. >> >> This file is extracted from RFC6716. Please see that RFC for additional >> information. >> >> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without >> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions >> are met: >> >> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >> >> - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >> >> - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the >> names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote >> products derived from this software without specific prior written >> permission. >> >> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS >> ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT >> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR >> A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER >> OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, >> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, >> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR >> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF >> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING >> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS >> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
