Re: Packages containing RFCs
Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com> 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
>> 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.
>> 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)
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.