[ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim

[Joe Touch]

"Ole J. Jacobsen" wrote:
> 
> The issue of copyright on RFCs and I-Ds comes up over and over and over
> again on this list. Would you please read past postings on this topic.
> It has been pointed out MANY times that there are specific reasons why
> the copyright statements are the way they are. The statements have nothing
> whatsoever to do do with "ownership" of the documents in the traditional
> copyright sense. This applies to all RFCs regardless of publication date.
> All of these documents are "public" and "distribution of this memo is
> unlimited". 

IDs don't have that statement about "public" or "distribution of this
memo is unlimited", exactly because distribution _IS_ specifically
limited,
to 6 months. This too has been pointed out many times, but archives
violating that very explicit 'condition of use' provision persist.

> The copyright statements are in place to prevent people from
> MODIFYING documents and claiming the modified docs have the same status
> as the original.

Section 10 of RFC 2026 deals with modification, production of derivative
works, etc. But it also deals with ownership of the copyright of the
document,
and its transferal to ISOC - as do specific statements in the suffix of
some RFCs, but not all.

Joe