Timothy,
Then I don't understand your argument, more so because the actual content of the two RFCs in question is so different that they aren't copies of eachother... not partly nor complete and I therefore don't understand why copyright plays a role.
The best way to resolve this is by following Scott’s suggestion somewhere at the top of this thread.
Still on personal title,
Yours,
Olaf.
Mobile device, apologies for typos
Van: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Verzonden: Monday, October 31, 2022 5:32:21 PM
Aan: Olaf Kolkman <kolkman@xxxxxxxx>
CC: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Onderwerp: Re: [External] RFC 8958 needs to be removed
Verzonden: Monday, October 31, 2022 5:32:21 PM
Aan: Olaf Kolkman <kolkman@xxxxxxxx>
CC: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Onderwerp: Re: [External] RFC 8958 needs to be removed
> 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?
