> On 10/31/2022 6:03 PM EDT Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > RFC8958 is "derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation" of RFC3405 so the copyright notice and that paragraph from the full copyright statement must be "included on all such copies and derivative works" which it is not. I will also add that RFC8958 violates BCP78 again, this time from different sentence in section 3.3 that says: "The right to produce derivative works must be granted in order for an IETF working group to accept a Contribution as a working group document or otherwise work on it." And those rights to create derivative works were never granted to rfc8958 because rfc3405 forbids it unless that notice and paragraph are present in the derivative work, which they are not.
