On 10/31/2022 9:32 AM, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
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?
That discussion assumes that the authors of RFC 8958 somehow infringe on
the copyrights of the authors of RFC 3405. RFC 8958 is a very short RFC,
merely making a point on the use of a register of URI and stating the
IETF position on that registry. It is as if RFC 8958 was specifically
written to avoid any appearance of copyright violation. I would like to
understand why you believe that it does.
-- Christian Huitema
