packages-metadata/d/doc-rfc.copyright

This package was debianized by Kai Henningsen <kai@debian.org> on
Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:50:30 +0200.

It was downloaded from <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/tar/RFC-all.tar.gz>
(also contains web pages from <http://www.rfc-editor.org/> and drafts from
<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>) except the non-web files were actually
downloaded with rsync.

Upstream Authors: see the individual files; contact the RFC Editor at:
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, or see his homepage above.

In general, as long as an individual RFC is kept intact, it can be copied
freely. In detail:

All newer RFCs carry individual copyright/license notices. Also,
<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/copyright.txt> says the
following:

                    COPYRIGHTS AND PATENT RIGHTS IN RFCs

                             21 August 2007
     _________________________________________________________________

   This page summarizes the current rules governing RFC copyrights and
   dislaimers on patent ("Intellectual Property") rights.

   It is coordinated with the IETF documents "IETF Rights in
   Contributions", BCP 78/RFC 3978, "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the
   IETF Trust", BCP 78/RFC 4748, and "Intellectual Property Rights in
   IETF Technology", BCP 79/RFC 3979. These documents are the result of a
   recent effort by the IPR Working Group of the IETF working group of
   the IETF, replacing earlier versions BCP 78/RFC 3667 and BCP 79/RFC
   3668.

   An HTML version of this text is available at:
     http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html.

   Earlier versions of this document:
     * copyright.1Mar05.txt
     * copyright.17Feb04.txt
     * copyright.23Jan01.txt (and earlier)

    _________________________________________________________________

   BCP 78 (RFC 3978) specifies the copyright rules applicable to
   RFCs, aligning these rules with modern copyright law.  The rules
   are generally intended to safeguard the integrity, future
   availability, and usefulness of published RFCs but continue the
   historical policy of free and open distribution and reuse of RFCs,
   to the extent possible.

    BCP 78 (RFC 4748)  transfers ownership to the IETF Trust.

   As explained in BCP 78, there are two classes of RFCs: IETF
   submissions and RFC Editor ("independent") submissions. The rules
   for copyrights on IETF submissions are fully defined in BCP 78, but
   some aspects of these rules are left for the RFC Editor to define
   for independent submissions.  There is really only one essential
   difference: the freedom to create derivative works; see below.

  Topics:

     o Reproduction Rules
     o Derivative Works
     o Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on RFC Content
     o Boilerplate within I-Ds and RFCs
   _________________________________________________________________

                           Reproduction Rules

       The following rules control the reproduction of RFCs by third
       parties:

         1. Copying and distributing an entire RFC [1] without
            changes:

            1a. Copying for free redistribution is allowed and
            encouraged. [2]

            1b. Inclusion of RFC copies within other documents or
            collections that are distributed for a fee is allowed. [3]

     Note: In case (1b), it is a courtesy to ask the RFC author(s) and
     to provide a copy of the final document or collection.

         2. Translating RFCs into other languages: Translation and
            publication of an entire RFC into another language is
            allowed.

            It is courtesy to inform the RFC author(s) of such
            translation.

         3. Copying and distributing an entire RFC with changes in
            format, font, etc.: Changing format, font, etc. is allowed
            only with permission of the author(s). With this
            permission, rule 1. applies.

         4. Copying and distributing portions of an RFC:

     This is what the lawyers call "preparation of derivative works".
     The rules are shown below.

       NOTES:
       [1] "Entire" includes all the copyright and IPR boilerplate.
       [2] This case permits the present mirroring of RFCs on many web
           sites.
       [3] Anyone can take some RFCs, put them in a book, copyright
           the book, and sell it. This in no way inhibits anyone else
           from doing the same thing, or inhibits any other
           distribution of the RFCs.

         _____________________________________________________________

                              Derivative Works

          + Permissions for Derivative Works

            Section 3.3 of BCP 78 specifies a restricted allowance for
            derivative works from RFCs that were IETF submissions. An
            author of one of these RFCs is required only to permit
            derivative works for use within the IETF standards process
            (although an author is free to permit more general usage).
            This means, for example, that it may not be permissible
            for a third party to extract text from an IETF submission
            RFC for use in a "man" page or other system documentation,
            even if credit is given.

            For independent RFC submissions, however, the RFC Editor
            requires that authors grant unlimited permission for
            derivative works, with appropriate credits and
            citations. In summary:

               o 4a. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that
                 was an IETF contribution is allowed, but only for use
                 within the IETF standards process. Proper credit and
                 citations must be provided [BCP 78 Section 3.3.a(c)].

               o 4b. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that
                 was an RFC Editor contribution is allowed. [BCP 78
                 Section 4.2a(C)] Credit and citations must be given.

          + No Derivative Works (NDW)

            Since many Internet Drafts (I-Ds) represent work in
            progress, I-D authors sometimes want to prevent all
            preparation of derivative works based on their
            documents. Although Section 5.2a of BCP 78 specifies "no
            derivative works" (NDW) boilerplate that may be included
            in an I-D, IETF rules generally do not allow NDW
            boilerplate in documents used in the Internet Standards
            process (see Section 7.3 of BCP 78).  Use of NDW
            boilerplate in an independent submission must be approved
            by the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will generally allow use
            of NDW boilerplate only for publication of proprietary
            protocols or the publication of specifications developed
            by other standards organizations, as discussed in Section
            7.3 of BCP 78.
            _____________________________________________________________

                      Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

       BCP 79 governs issues concerning possible intellectual property
       described in RFCs. An IETF submission will include a
       "Disclaimer of validity" [BCP 79 Section 5] boilerplate.  For
       RFC Editor submissions, BCP 79 requires this boilerplate if IPR
       has previously been disclosed for this RFC; however, the RFC
       Editor's policy is to always include this boilerplate. It may
       be omitted from a independent submission only when it is clear
       from the nature of the RFC contents that no intellectual
       property rights could be claimed.

       Note also that an RFC should not contain a notice of the
       existence of specific relevant intellectual property (patents,
       etc.). (This point is unclear in BCP 79, but the RFC Editor has
       been informed that the IPR Working Group is quite clear about
       it.)
       _____________________________________________________________

                       Boilerplate Within I-Ds and RFCs

       The normal last-page boilerplate in an RFC is shown for
       [10]IETF submissions and for [11]RFC Editor (independent)
       submissions. This boilerplate should appear in every Internet
       Draft. This boilerplate has the following components:

          + Copyright Statement [BCP 78 Section 5.4]. Note that there
            is a very small difference between the Copyright
            statements for IETF submissions [BCP 78 Section 5.4] and
            RFC Editor submissions.

          + Disclaimer [BCP 78 Section 5.5]

          + Disclaimer of Validity (of IPR claims) [BCP 79 Section 5]

       _________________________________________________________________
       _________________________________________________________________
1	This package was debianized by Kai Henningsen <kai@debian.org> on
2	Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:50:30 +0200.
3
4	It was downloaded from <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/tar/RFC-all.tar.gz>
5	(also contains web pages from <http://www.rfc-editor.org/> and drafts from
6	<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>) except the non-web files were actually
7	downloaded with rsync.
8
9	Upstream Authors: see the individual files; contact the RFC Editor at:
10	<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, or see his homepage above.
11
12	In general, as long as an individual RFC is kept intact, it can be copied
13	freely. In detail:
14
15	All newer RFCs carry individual copyright/license notices. Also,
16	<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/copyright.txt> says the
17	following:
18
19	COPYRIGHTS AND PATENT RIGHTS IN RFCs
20
21	21 August 2007
22	_________________________________________________________________
23
24	This page summarizes the current rules governing RFC copyrights and
25	dislaimers on patent ("Intellectual Property") rights.
26
27	It is coordinated with the IETF documents "IETF Rights in
28	Contributions", BCP 78/RFC 3978, "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the
29	IETF Trust", BCP 78/RFC 4748, and "Intellectual Property Rights in
30	IETF Technology", BCP 79/RFC 3979. These documents are the result of a
31	recent effort by the IPR Working Group of the IETF working group of
32	the IETF, replacing earlier versions BCP 78/RFC 3667 and BCP 79/RFC
33	3668.
34
35	An HTML version of this text is available at:
36	http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html.
37
38	Earlier versions of this document:
39	* copyright.1Mar05.txt
40	* copyright.17Feb04.txt
41	* copyright.23Jan01.txt (and earlier)
42
43	_________________________________________________________________
44
45	BCP 78 (RFC 3978) specifies the copyright rules applicable to
46	RFCs, aligning these rules with modern copyright law. The rules
47	are generally intended to safeguard the integrity, future
48	availability, and usefulness of published RFCs but continue the
49	historical policy of free and open distribution and reuse of RFCs,
50	to the extent possible.
51
52	BCP 78 (RFC 4748) transfers ownership to the IETF Trust.
53
54	As explained in BCP 78, there are two classes of RFCs: IETF
55	submissions and RFC Editor ("independent") submissions. The rules
56	for copyrights on IETF submissions are fully defined in BCP 78, but
57	some aspects of these rules are left for the RFC Editor to define
58	for independent submissions. There is really only one essential
59	difference: the freedom to create derivative works; see below.
60
61	Topics:
62
63	o Reproduction Rules
64	o Derivative Works
65	o Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on RFC Content
66	o Boilerplate within I-Ds and RFCs
67	_________________________________________________________________
68
69	Reproduction Rules
70
71	The following rules control the reproduction of RFCs by third
72	parties:
73
74	1. Copying and distributing an entire RFC [1] without
75	changes:
76
77	1a. Copying for free redistribution is allowed and
78	encouraged. [2]
79
80	1b. Inclusion of RFC copies within other documents or
81	collections that are distributed for a fee is allowed. [3]
82
83	Note: In case (1b), it is a courtesy to ask the RFC author(s) and
84	to provide a copy of the final document or collection.
85
86	2. Translating RFCs into other languages: Translation and
87	publication of an entire RFC into another language is
88	allowed.
89
90	It is courtesy to inform the RFC author(s) of such
91	translation.
92
93	3. Copying and distributing an entire RFC with changes in
94	format, font, etc.: Changing format, font, etc. is allowed
95	only with permission of the author(s). With this
96	permission, rule 1. applies.
97
98	4. Copying and distributing portions of an RFC:
99
100	This is what the lawyers call "preparation of derivative works".
101	The rules are shown below.
102
103	NOTES:
104	[1] "Entire" includes all the copyright and IPR boilerplate.
105	[2] This case permits the present mirroring of RFCs on many web
106	sites.
107	[3] Anyone can take some RFCs, put them in a book, copyright
108	the book, and sell it. This in no way inhibits anyone else
109	from doing the same thing, or inhibits any other
110	distribution of the RFCs.
111
112	_____________________________________________________________
113
114	Derivative Works
115
116	+ Permissions for Derivative Works
117
118	Section 3.3 of BCP 78 specifies a restricted allowance for
119	derivative works from RFCs that were IETF submissions. An
120	author of one of these RFCs is required only to permit
121	derivative works for use within the IETF standards process
122	(although an author is free to permit more general usage).
123	This means, for example, that it may not be permissible
124	for a third party to extract text from an IETF submission
125	RFC for use in a "man" page or other system documentation,
126	even if credit is given.
127
128	For independent RFC submissions, however, the RFC Editor
129	requires that authors grant unlimited permission for
130	derivative works, with appropriate credits and
131	citations. In summary:
132
133	o 4a. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that
134	was an IETF contribution is allowed, but only for use
135	within the IETF standards process. Proper credit and
136	citations must be provided [BCP 78 Section 3.3.a(c)].
137
138	o 4b. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that
139	was an RFC Editor contribution is allowed. [BCP 78
140	Section 4.2a(C)] Credit and citations must be given.
141
142	+ No Derivative Works (NDW)
143
144	Since many Internet Drafts (I-Ds) represent work in
145	progress, I-D authors sometimes want to prevent all
146	preparation of derivative works based on their
147	documents. Although Section 5.2a of BCP 78 specifies "no
148	derivative works" (NDW) boilerplate that may be included
149	in an I-D, IETF rules generally do not allow NDW
150	boilerplate in documents used in the Internet Standards
151	process (see Section 7.3 of BCP 78). Use of NDW
152	boilerplate in an independent submission must be approved
153	by the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will generally allow use
154	of NDW boilerplate only for publication of proprietary
155	protocols or the publication of specifications developed
156	by other standards organizations, as discussed in Section
157	7.3 of BCP 78.
158	_____________________________________________________________
159
160	Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
161
162	BCP 79 governs issues concerning possible intellectual property
163	described in RFCs. An IETF submission will include a
164	"Disclaimer of validity" [BCP 79 Section 5] boilerplate. For
165	RFC Editor submissions, BCP 79 requires this boilerplate if IPR
166	has previously been disclosed for this RFC; however, the RFC
167	Editor's policy is to always include this boilerplate. It may
168	be omitted from a independent submission only when it is clear
169	from the nature of the RFC contents that no intellectual
170	property rights could be claimed.
171
172	Note also that an RFC should not contain a notice of the
173	existence of specific relevant intellectual property (patents,
174	etc.). (This point is unclear in BCP 79, but the RFC Editor has
175	been informed that the IPR Working Group is quite clear about
176	it.)
177	_____________________________________________________________
178
179	Boilerplate Within I-Ds and RFCs
180
181	The normal last-page boilerplate in an RFC is shown for
182	[10]IETF submissions and for [11]RFC Editor (independent)
183	submissions. This boilerplate should appear in every Internet
184	Draft. This boilerplate has the following components:
185
186	+ Copyright Statement [BCP 78 Section 5.4]. Note that there
187	is a very small difference between the Copyright
188	statements for IETF submissions [BCP 78 Section 5.4] and
189	RFC Editor submissions.
190
191	+ Disclaimer [BCP 78 Section 5.5]
192
193	+ Disclaimer of Validity (of IPR claims) [BCP 79 Section 5]
194
195	_________________________________________________________________
196	_________________________________________________________________