Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:38:20 -0500 From: James Bailie <jimmy@jamesbailie.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions Message-ID: <4380B48C.8080909@jamesbailie.com> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCENDFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCENDFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > You might check this but I believe that the Copyright convention > specifically > excepts "specifications" from copyright coverage. I think there's some > other > classes of original work that fall under this. How about simply > rewriting the > ITEF license to designate any RFC as the complete RFC is a specification, > and therefore uncopyrightable. I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly believe under the Berne convention RFCs have copyright. The technical details described in an RFC may be protected by other IP laws, such as patent law for example, if the originator chose to patent those details, but the text of the RFC document itself, describing those details, is an original composition which satisfies the terms of the convention. The only means of rescinding copyright is for the copyright owner to explicitly place the work into the public domain. Simon's proposed license seems reasonable to me. It is essentially a BSD-style license, allowing royalty-free redistribution and modification, but with a difference when it comes to attribution. Original unmodified text from a specification must contain an attribution to the source document, while any modified versions (which may contain inaccuracies) have to have all references to the source organizations removed. The Berne convention is online, at the WIPO site: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661 -- James Bailie <jimmy@jamesbailie.com> http://www.jamesbailie.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4380B48C.8080909>