> I don't understand why you think a document that is built on one > that uses pre-5398 text but was published, say, this year with > the disclaimer is different from one that uses pre-5398 text but > was published in the middle of last year. I don't think there is a difference. I was only warning that people shouldn't think that this is going to go away any time soon. I am sure that when people build on some recent RFC they will be thinking that it is all covered, but if that RFC built on a yet older one, the problem remains. > Whatever we do, there will be documents for a very long time > that have roots in pre-5378 materials. Whether those roots are > significant depends, presumably, on how much text was carried > forward not on how many times it was carried forward, so I don't > see a "second derivative" issue that is any different from the > first one. Over time the original work becomes diluted (in quantity and quality), and eventually effectively disappears. There is a lot of case law regarding this issue, and it all hinges on transformativeness. The more new material there is, and the more the original material is reinterpreted, the more likely it is that the use of the original material will be considered fair use. One rather recent case is Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust vs. Spielberg, where it was claimed that Spielberg's movie Disturbia borrowed from Hitchcock's "Rear Window" which was based on a short story by Woolrich the copyrights for which are owned by the trust. Hitchcock did obtain a license, but Spielberg didn't. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf