>What is much less clear is the issues surrounding excerpts, or >derivative works. The original query pretty clearly asked/asserted >whether older RFCs were "in the public domain". That's pretty far >removed from "republication in their entirety". Actually, what he has in mind is indeed republication in their entirety. >IANAL, but if you've followed discussions in places like the IPR WG, >it doesn't take much to conclude that this is a complicated space in >which rules interpreted by real lawyers play a big role. Since approximately my entire income depends on copyright law (I write books), I have looked at Title 17 and its interpretation pretty closely. I have to conclude that given the facts surrounding the early RFCs: pre-1976, no copyright notice, many written on government contract, and a history of widespread copying and reuse without explicit permission, it'd be extremely hard to make a case that there were any limits on their use. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf