Re: #1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

...
> - Simon Josefsson asks what modifications are permitted to an excerpts 
> that would allow it to be still considered "verbatim". Examples of "it 
> seems reasonable to allow" are:
>
> * remove page breaks
>
> * re-flow the text to fit a particular column width
>
> * add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For example, it is often
>  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which for longer
>  quotes typically require that you prefix each line with '//'.

Also: use multiple fonts for clarity

> There are other examples that are less clear, including:
>
> * Incorporating errata

Opinion: OK if they are already posted by the RFC Editor.
If discovered by the publisher, they should not be
incorporated; they should be described separately.

> * Fix spelling typos

Opinion: OK, as is translation from English

> * Improve ASCII art by replacing it with a real drawing

Opinion: dangerous. Should be labelled as "redrawn by [the publisher]"

> John Klensin has raised another concern:
>
> "I'm prepared to lose this one, although, if I do, I'm going to
> press strongly for copyright transfers to the IETF so the policy
> can be administered ("why that is relevant" is probably a
> different thread, but hinges on when an excerpt isn't "just" an
> excerpt)."

I'm not sure. If we get the right to allow derivative works by 3rd parties,
why would we need this?

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg