Proposed license for IETF Contributions
jas at extundo.com
Mon Nov 21 17:28:13 GMT 2005
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at toybox.placo.com> writes:
> Hi Simon,
> You might check this but I believe that the Copyright convention
> excepts "specifications" from copyright coverage. I think there's some
> 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.
Hi Ted. I have not seen anyone suggest this before, and I strongly
doubt that anything as complex as a specification would be excepted
from copyright coverage. All specifications I have read have been
Perhaps you are thinking of US Governmental works? They are not
copyrighted in the same way other works are.
Please provide me with a reference for this.
>>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Simon Josefsson
>>Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 7:28 AM
>>To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>>Subject: Proposed license for IETF Contributions
>>Hi all. I noticed the following in the release notes for 6.0:
>> The following manual pages, which were derived from RFCs and
>> possibly violate the IETF's copyrights, have been replaced:
>> gai_strerror(3), getaddrinfo(3), getnameinfo(3), inet6_opt_init(3),
>> inet6_option_space(3), inet6_rth_space(3), inet6_rthdr_space(3),
>> icmp6(4), and ip6(4). [MERGED]
>>I'm working on a proposed update for the copying conditions (i.e., the
>>copyright license) used on IETF Contributions. One goal is to make
>>the license more aligned with open source and free software
>>requirements. More background at <http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/>.
>>I'd like the FreeBSD community input on a whether a my proposed
>>license would have avoided the above situation, and similar situations
>>in the future.
>>The issue is whether the RFC 3978 license permit using RFC excerpts in
>>source code or documentation (man pages in your case) that is licensed
>>under a free software license. I believe RFC 3978 do not permit this,
>>and judging from your release notes, it seems you share that view.
>>Anyway. Here is my proposed license:
>> c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
>> right to copy, use and distribute the Contribution, with
>> or without modification, in any medium, without royalty,
>> provided that redistributed modified works do not contain
>> misleading author or version information. This
>> specifically imply, for instance, that redistributed
>> modified works must remove any references to endorsement
>> by the IETF, IESG, IANA, IAB, ISOC, RFC Editor, and
>> similar organizations and remove any claims of status as
>> Internet Standard, e.g., by removing the RFC boilerplate.
>> The IETF requests that any citation or excerpt of
>> unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from
>> which the text is derived.
>>RFC excerpts are sometimes used in source code too, so the above
>>scenario with the man pages may not be a isolated accident. I looked
>>at Apache, Samba, OpenSSL and some other packages, and they all cite
>>RFCs in various places. That usage may also be problematic, but I'm
>>freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>>"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date:
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions