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

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
>> 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)

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)
are DFSG-free.

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.


Reply to: