<michael.dillon@xxxxxx> writes: >> > I think the *whole point* of a standard is to restrict how >> things are >> > done, in order to promote interoperability. >> >> Standards are recommendations not restrictions. > > Let's say that the restrictions viewpoint wins out in the > IETF and all RFCs are copyrighted in such a way that I > am not free to publish a revised version. > > What law would prevent me from publishing the following > GW-SMTP document? > > ----snip----- > Gee-Whizz SMTP is a derivative of IETF. > > In RFC 2821 replace all occurences of HELO with GDAY. > ----snip----- > > This is clearly an incompatible derivative of SMTP but I > don't even need to quote the document, even though "fair use" > laws would allow me to do that. Indeed, and that is why the argument that specifications need to be copy+modify protected in order to prevent incompatible derivatives is silly. Further, re-writing RFC 2821 using other words is a feasible task for any significant SDO that really wishes to standardize a modified variant of SMTP. > P.S. it seems to me that the best way to ensure that incompatible > derivatives do not flourish is to make sure that the work of the > IETF remains relevant to the current situation, and not mired in > the past. That way, the IETF will maintain a position of respect > and people will not want to create incompatible derivative works. > > Openness is required in order for advancement to occur. +1. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf