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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:

> 3) Let each translator adopt his own license, subject to the
> restriction that the rights granted to the users of the translation
> are no more extensive than the rights granted under the license for
> the original RFC. That seems consistent with the RFC 3978 language on
> derived works inside the IETF process (3.3 a. (C)):
>
>             ....... The license to such
>          derivative works not granting the ISOC and the IETF any more
>          rights than the license to the original Contribution,

Seems good to me.

>> However, this may create confusion, if two translations to a language
>> exists, that is subtle different, and is cited somewhere.  Then the
>> claim "RFC x says:" seem incorrect.
>>
>> Perhaps we shouldn't allow verbatim quotes of translated RFCs to say
>> "RFC x says:" at all, but rather force it to be "Z's translation of
>> RFC x says:".  However, I dislike a license that is complex enough to
>> have to go into that kind of subtle details.
>>
>> As you might guess, I don't have a clear opinion on this.
>>
>> I note that if we have a permissive license on entire documents, none
>> of this appear to be a problem.  Anyone can quote the original and
>> translated RFC, however they want, as long as they don't claim
>> something that is false (e.g., "RFC x says that you MUST do this" when
>> it really doesn't say that; a permissive IETF license can include
>> restrictions like that).
>>   
> I don't parse how that solves the problem.... I guess it depends on a
> particular interpretation of "permissive".....

I meant a license that is permissive enough to be compatible with
popular free licenses out there, such as the revised BSD license and
the GPL.

/Simon

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