Bert,
A common example of useful "derivative" work is to modify the
document
such that references include URLs and include it in web-sites. There are
any
number of private, or semi-private - and maybe one or two public - web
sites
that have provided hyper-linked versions of Internet Drafts in just this
way.
Because this document explicitly excludes derivative works, this
precludes
doing this for this (eventual) RFC - or, more likely, sets someone up for
legal
trouble if they have already done so.
I'm not sure why an RFC might be granted perpetual unrestricted
copyright
but not allowed in derivative works. Is the intent to include copies as
derivative
works?
It seems a good idea to provide justification - or at least and
explanation -
if an intended RFC is no in complete compliance with RFC 2026.
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> I noticed today that I gave an incorrect answer to one of
> Kireeti's points. He asked and I answered:
>
> > > I would like to know what the intent is in not granting
> > > "the right to produce derivative works",
> > Did Steve Trowbridge not answer the first question?
> >
> This is in the Draft-aboulmagd-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt document.
> It states:
>
> This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
> all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to
> produce derivative works is not granted.
>
> But this is OK since this is documenting ITU material.
>
> Bert and Scott