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

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>]

What you are saying is that the IETF needs a method of qualifying
translations so that they can be certified to be exactly representative of
the original IP work. Anything less means that the IETF is not managing the
IP properly IMHO.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <jas at extundo.com>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: #1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?


> 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


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