Harald Tveit Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the
Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com writes:
Jorge,
I'm working on the assumption that once a contributor or a
contributor's assign has signed the license form in its
RFC5378 version, we can all submit drafts including that
contributor's earlier text without further ado. Is that
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Who owns the oft-repeated
The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and
OPTIONAL in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
I'm referring to the bits effectively
Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes:
I will check into this. Ideally, all boilerplate would be owned by the
IETF Trust, but I am not aware that anyone has ever focused on this
material. Technically, the copyright owner would be the author(s) who
wrote the first document that says
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes:
I will check into this. Ideally, all boilerplate would be owned
by the
IETF Trust, but I am not aware that anyone has ever focused on this
material. Technically, the copyright owner would
[I trimmed the cc:s. I assume the trustees are paying attention to
this, and also that WG Chairs are all subscribed to the general list.]
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:12:42PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I
understood the rules,
For the record, I have sent the following email to the IAD, signed
using my PGP key. I would encourage others to send similar notes.
From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com
Date: December 18, 2008 2:56:20 PM PST
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: Trustees trust...@ietf.org
Subject: RFC 5378 representation
I,
So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending it in,
and forwarding the note to the IETF list, I observe http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf
.
By all means, folks, use the form.
!...@#$%^
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 17:37 -0500 Contreras, Jorge
jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com wrote:
As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names
required to cover
all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a
MIB module?
See above. In addition, MIB modules were
All
The trustees are aware of the problems with respect to the RFC 5378
implementation and possible consequences with respect to the license.
Pending a further analysis, and possible modification to the license,
we have taken the current license off-line.
You may also expect a proposal
(I tracked the first sentence of the Managed objects are accessed
phrase back to RFC 1065, August 1988; authors-of-record
were Marshall
Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that,
of course.)
That date is before RFC 1310 which makes things more interesting.
Even
[also RE: where to send RFC 5378 license form]
To: IETF TRUST
I have signed and faxed a copy of the IETF Documents Non-Exclusive License
to +1-703-326-9881. Not that my technical contributions actually matter, but
perhaps someone here will someday want to copy or create derivative works of
my
Larry - thank you for your contribution!
I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may
not even be
necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most
RFCs are joint
works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing:
In the United States,
Indeed -- I don't see a copyright notice in RFC 1065. This may be a
useful approach for old RFCs that lack a copyright notice. Does anyone
know when the ISOC copyright notice was first applied to RFCs?
Probably some time after 1989, when the ISOC took over funding of the
RFC Editor. I
Jorge Contreras wrote:
The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. In
some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made
distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than
collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not
Bob Braden wrote:
Indeed -- I don't see a copyright notice in RFC 1065. This may be a
useful approach for old RFCs that lack a copyright notice. Does anyone
know when the ISOC copyright notice was first applied to RFCs?
Probably some time after 1989, when the ISOC took over funding of the
Dave -- very useful -- thanks!!
-Original Message-
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:56 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Cc: Contreras, Jorge
Subject: History of RFC copyright text
Bob Braden wrote:
Indeed -- I don't see a copyright
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. In
some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made
distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than
collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not
As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names
required to cover
all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a
MIB module?
See above. In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly
under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-code
text.
Dear Jorge;
On Dec 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
(I tracked the first sentence of the Managed objects are accessed
phrase back to RFC 1065, August 1988; authors-of-record
were Marshall
Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that,
of course.)
That date is
Title: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Yes, I think we mention federal works in 5378. Unfortunately I don't think there are a lot of them, but have not done an inventory.
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@multicasttech.com
To: Contreras, Jorge
federal works
sorry for my might be oftopic comment, so if i see something like
this in a source code, ,
This material is partially based on work sponsored by the National
Science foundation under Cooperative Agreement No NCR-x.The
Government has certain rights in this material.
On Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending it in, and
forwarding the note to the IETF list, I observe
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf.
Fred,
Some of these RFC were
macbroadcast wrote:
There are also numerous Federal Co-Development programs in the various
Excutive Branch agencies and they also must be included here because
those may also have outside privte commitments as well.
Todd Glassey
federal works
sorry for my might be oftopic comment, so
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'NFS Version 4 Minor Version 1 '
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-29.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network File System Version 4 Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus Westerlund.
A
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'NFSv4 Minor Version 1 XDR Description '
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-12.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network File System Version 4 Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Object-based pNFS Operations '
draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-12.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network File System Version 4 Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus Westerlund.
A URL of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format '
draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-17.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward.
A URL of
29 matches
Mail list logo
