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

Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions

Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> writes:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:19:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> writes:
>> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
>> > [...]
>> >> > I'm not sure about my suggested "name of work" phrase; it's
>> >clunky, > > anyone got anything better?
>> >> 
>> >> I agree it sounds strange, but I can't think of a better term.
>> >
>> > Maybe "title"?
>> > But if you think that "title" is too bound to documents and doesn't
>> > fit well for works of authorship in the general case, I won't be
>> > able to disagree much...
>> "Title" will be confused with the actual document title, which has
>> nothing to do with this.  Label?  I dunno.
> Huh?
> I thought the "actual document title" was the "name of the work"...
> Now I'm puzzled: could you please clarify?

Examples are good for this:

Actual document title may be:
  Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms.

The "name of work" or "label" or what we may call it, may be:
  RFC 2488, BCP 0028

These labels are not protected by trademark or copyright, as far as I
believe, but in copying conditions, it can be requested to remove them
anyway, since labeling another work as RFC 2488 would be confusing.
This does not prevent anyone from writing a completely new document
and calling it RFC 2488 though.  Copying conditions can't help with

> P.S.: Please don't reply to me Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it.
> Reply to the list only, instead, I'd rather avoid receiving replies
> twice. Thanks. 

Cc:ing the author is normal procedures, you should consider using a
header like Mail-Followup-To to avoid copies.


Reply to: