From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 22 01:23:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EDD16A420 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:23:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFE443D45 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:23:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id jAM1Pxb68558; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:26:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "James Bailie" , Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:22:57 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <4380B48C.8080909@jamesbailie.com> Importance: Normal Cc: Subject: RE: Proposed license for IETF Contributions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:23:07 -0000 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of James Bailie >Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:38 AM >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions > > >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. > Which is what applying an IETF RFC license that designates the ENTIRE rfc as a SPECIFICATION would do so! Sheesh! >Simon's proposed license seems reasonable to me. Except that it is untried in a court of law. If the author of an RFC simply designates the entire RFC as a specification, by using the IETF license that states "this entire document is a specification" then you have an easy way to play within the already established international understandings of what a specification is. Just because the GNU did it with their own license doesen't mean that this is a good way to go. Ted