[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Source package contains non-free IETF RFC/I-D's

On 17 okt 2006, at 18.47, Luk Claes wrote:

Some statistics:
  74 packages
 401 MATCH, i.e., the RFC in the source package is an authentic RFC
  79 MISMATCH, i.e., the RFC differ from the authentic RFC

Note that not all authentic RFC documents have the same license, some of them
are probably even DFSG compliant...

Can you name one such license that is DFSG-free?

RFC's published before 1989 may be in the public domain, since they don't contain a copyright notice, but the RFC editor claim that the new copying conditions apply retroactively.

RFC's published after 1989 are protected by copyrights, but as far as I know, none of the RFC licenses are free. The RFC 2026 and the RFC 3978 licenses has been discussed before. That leaves, I believe, only the license specified by RFC 1602, which reads:

                "Copyright (c) ISOC (year date).  Permission is granted
                to reproduce, distribute, transmit and otherwise
                communicate to the public any material subject to
                copyright by ISOC, provided that credit is given to the
                source.  For information concerning required

That appears to be non-free.

I note that RFC 1602 do seem to give the ISOC the right to release those RFCs under a liberal license:

         l.   Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a
              perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right
              and license under any copyrights in the contribution to
              reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly and
              prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate
              all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce,
              distribute and perform or display publicly any such
derivative works, in any form and in all languages, and to
              authorize others to do so.

Perhaps talking to ISOC about this would help.

So there can be more than 79 false positives...

I don't yet see any way for that to hold.


Reply to: