On Mon Oct 22 17:02:55 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Not since RFC 3978 was published. Details here:
http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/
I think some of this is out of date, actually - the IETF Trust does
state, quite clearly (although informally) that many of these rights
are in fact granted. There was a long and rather dull thread
involving Simon, myself, and others about this on the IETF list,
although I'm not sure that Simon was convinced, although I think he
was partly convinced.
It's further complicated by the fact that some code present in RFCs
is licensed explicitly within the RFCs, even though it's licensed
implicitly because it's an RFC as well. Which probably goes to show
how carefully people think about these things. :-)
I don't think anyone disagrees that the various theoretical use-cases
Simon has there shouldn't be legal, it's more that many people think
they already are, and don't want the (severe) headache of trying to
change the text - there's a large body of people who have to be
generally convinced it's worthwhile, and currently that's simply not
the case.
The situation with RFCs is made more complex because the IETF [Trust]
does not own the copyright on the RFCs, whereas the XSF does. (Or at
least, it thinks people have assigned it copyright by the action of
submitting the XEP).
This means that the IETF Trust merely has to work within the rights
it has been licensed, whereas the XSF can wholesale relicense its
XEPs utterly.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
