Todd: No. The additional rights are granted for RFC 6716, and there is no implication about any other RFC.
Russ On Sep 18, 2012, at 5:47 PM, tglassey wrote: > On 9/18/2012 2:33 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Russ, >> >> I can't seem to align what you say with the document content. The >> rights granted by the license text in the document (quoted below) >> appears to me be identical to the TLP except that the copyright header >> also includes non-authors. Is this what you refer to with granting >> additional rights? >> >> My concern is not about rights granted (they appear to follow the TLD), >> but with the form of the copyright header that deviates from the TLD >> boilerplate. > Is there from this point forward a requirement for future works in this vein > to also use the same rights statement? I am curious because of the complexity > of merging this with other right specific issues. > > For instance if ID "A" is published with normal use rights and it is expanded > in a revision which then increases its rights to some secondary set of > rights-states and in so doing permanently seems to alter the baseline. > > What also if ID "A" is published with rights-set #1 and a formal work (like > those described in the AIA (the America Invents Act) for instance, and then > this is altered. The issue is how these rights do or do not promulgate from > ID or RFC revision-to-revision. > > Todd// >> What puzzles me is that the explanation that I have received earlier is >> that variations beyond what the TLP demand is not permitted even if >> there is community support for the content of a particular document. >> I'm happy if this is now the policy, as it would allow including more >> source code into RFCs. >> >> /Simon >> >> Russ Housley <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Simon: >>> >>> The authors wanted to grant additional rights beyond those that are >>> granted by the TLP. They indicated those rights in Section 10 of the >>> internet-Draft. This was challenged during WG Last Call, and it was >>> challenged during IETF Last Call. In each case, the authors make >>> their desire clear and the community supported them. For this reason >>> the IETF Trust granted the usual TLP rights and the additional rights >>> as well. >>> >>> Russ >>> >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> I noticed that the recent RFC 6716 contains some reference code that >>>> contain the copyright and licenses notice reproduced below. The IETF >>>> TLP [1] mandates a certain form of copyright notices and the TLP does >>>> not, as far as I can see, permit varying the boiler plate in any way. >>>> Note that both companies and organisations are mentioned in the >>>> copyright notice in RFC 6716, besides individuals. >>>> >>>> Does this indicate a policy change, a mistake with that document, or >>>> something else? >>>> >>>> Btw, kudos to the RFC 6716 authors for shipping reference code! I hope >>>> this will establish a best practice for standards in the future. >>>> >>>> /Simon >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm >>>> >>>> Copyright 1994-2011 IETF Trust, Xiph.Org, Skype Limited, Octasic, >>>> Jean-Marc Valin, Timothy B. Terriberry, >>>> CSIRO, Gregory Maxwell, Mark Borgerding, >>>> Erik de Castro Lopo. All rights reserved. >>>> >>>> This file is extracted from RFC6716. Please see that RFC for additional >>>> information. >>>> >>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without >>>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions >>>> are met: >>>> >>>> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >>>> >>>> - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >>>> >>>> - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the >>>> names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote >>>> products derived from this software without specific prior written >>>> permission. >>>> >>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS >>>> ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT >>>> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR >>>> A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER >>>> OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, >>>> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, >>>> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR >>>> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF >>>> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING >>>> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS >>>> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5275 - Release Date: 09/18/12 >> >> > > > -- > //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended > recipient. >
