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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> writes:

>> 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.

Another problem with errata's, even those published by the RFC Editor,
is that they may change over time.

Still, in some situations (when space is short, or brevity is
preferred) it would be useful to permit this modification.

>> 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?

Good question, I don't see why.

In general, I think that Copyright transfers may be a good idea
anyway.  It would, e.g., enable the IETF to defend copyright
infringement on RFCs.  OTOH, the IETF might prefer to avoid wasting
time in court though.

/Simon

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