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) 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. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, Bsc, LPI, MCSE On-hiatus Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ -----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpCdShrN_7i1.pgp
Description: PGP signature