> On 10/27/2022 2:02 PM EDT Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 27 Oct 2022, at 11:04, touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> On Oct 27, 2022, at 8:49 AM, Pete Resnick > >> <resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 27 Oct 2022, at 9:03, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: > >> > >>> RFC 8958 needs to be removed because it is infringing on the > >>> copyright listed in section 14 of RFC3405. > >> > >> No, it isn't. The establishment of the IETF Trust assigned all > >> copyrights on exi[s]ting RFCs from the Internet Society to the IETF > >> Trust. See https://trustee.ietf.org > > > > Not all existing RFCs - only those published after a particular date > > (which I don’t recall). Those published before that date needed to > > have copyright transferred from the authors - and not all authors > > (myself included) have done so. > > > > Joe > > So, to be clear: ISOC assigned all of *its* copyrights to the IETF > Trust; obviously it couldn't assign authors' copyrights. But the > pre-5378 issue is irrelevant in this case: Even pre-5378, authors always > granted a license for their work to be copied, used, and modified > *within the IETF*, and 8958 is an IETF BCP and clearly within IETF > process. The pre-5378 issue is that the Trust can't allow work to be > used *outside* of the IETF process without the original authors' > permission. > Rfc8958 does not include the required language to conform to the copyright and receive permissions its claims have been granted. Time to get rid of rfc8958. Rfc3405 copyright says: "...provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. ".
