> On 10/31/2022 4:53 AM EDT Olaf Kolkman <kolkman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On strictly personal title, this mail does not reflect the position of > my employer! The reason I contribute is because I am an alumni of the > trust and read the RFCs in nauseating detail. > > > On 28 Oct 2022, at 23:27, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: > > >> On 10/28/2022 12:36 PM EDT Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 28, 2022, at 12:34 PM, Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> As I understand it, section-14 of rfc3405 contains the full > >>> Copyright. That would include the copyright notice (top sentences > >>> ending with All Rights Reserved) and the license below it. > >> > >> Not a reasonable (or correct) assumption. > > > > > > Why not? > > If I understand and paraphrase your argument well, you feel that that > specific rights that were granted by the copyright in 3405 (like the > ability to reproduce derivative works) are not explicitly granted in > 8958. > No. I'm saying that 8958 didn't meet the license requirements of 3405 and is therefore infringing. > If that is your argument then you have missed BCP 78 to which RFC8958 > is subject. (For the example of reproduction section 3.3. is relevant) > And rfc8958 fails bcp78 too. Ironically, it fails at your forementioned section 3.3 where it says " However, if the Contribution is accepted for development, the Contributor must resubmit the Contribution without the limitation notices before a working group can formally adopt the Contribution as a working group document." Can you point to where rfc3405 was resubmitted without the limiting notice before work began on rfc8958?
