Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:22:43 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC >>> are (I believe) in the public domain. > >> Public domain RFCs (if there are any) can be identified by looking at >> them. >> They must carry an appropriate notice to state that they are public >> domain or else be knowingly published with no copyright notice in a >> jurisdiction where, and at a time when, no copyright notice used to mean >> public domain[1]. > >> Better be sure that something is public domain, before saying that >> everything is fine, IMHO. > > Does this discussion mean the suggestion at the top of #199810 is wrong? > (ie. that RFCs not licensed under the license that first appeared (I think) > in RFC2220, October 1997 are OK)
What discussion is that? I don't think _any_ IETF copying conditions in the past (including RFC 2026 and RFC 3978 which the FSF has said are incompatible with (L)GPL) are DFSG-free. The RFCs that are in the public domain are probably OK, but that's before around RFC 1000 or so. > Certainly I've been trimming the RFC list every new-upstream version removing > anything after that point... > > Handily, I've got a new upstream version due for upload, so if I need to > whack the rest of the RFCs, now's a great time to do it. I believe anything published after 1988 (including 1988?) should be removed, or moved to non-free. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
