[ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim

[Ole J. Jacobsen]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Joe Touch wrote:


> 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.

Let's look at the *intent* here. The reason we have IDs with limited
lifetime is to allow us to make new (and better) versions and to prevent
(or strongly discourage) vendors from claiming conformance to an ID
which is a work-in-progress document. I see nothing wrong with an
"archivist" preserving old IDs if it is clearly understood that they
have expired. Unpublishing published documents is a pretty futile
exercise, and not helpful in my opinion.

> 
> > 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.

OK, that's fine. There are exceptions, but the statements regarding ISOC
on 99% of all of the documents in question were put there to encourage
distribution (and copying) rather than prevent it (as copyrights typically
do). The discussion on this list typically revolves around "why does ISOC
have copyright to RFC?" and "Isn't the XYZ copyright statement better?"


Ole

> 
> Joe
>