On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 04:04:14PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The RFC's published here all were made by individuals, and were > > not made by some IETF process. > > > > rfc1459 comes from a document that was always part of the irc > > source package. > > Understood, but it seems that RFC 2810-2813 may have been improved by > the IETF process?
Like I said, there was no IETF process. It was just done by different individuals than the original. > > Afaik, 2.8 versions don't have the doc/Comms file anymore > > since it was published as an rfc, but all previous version > > did. And the document clearly had an GPL license. > > Is it exactly the same content? If so, I believe it is fine. > However, it should be clarified in copyright. Comparing the documents, rfc1459 seems to have had alot of improvemnts compared to the doc/Comms file. > > Do I need to get the copyright holder of the documents to > > relicense it under the GPL? It seems clear to me that it > > already is covered by the GPL, but it shouldn't be a > > problem to get the copyright holder to explicitly state > > that. > > Yes, I think clarifying this would be very useful. Having a statement > from all authors about releasing the text under a different license > (like the GPL) would be sufficient. It may be useful to ask whether > they incorporated any text from someone else too (maybe as a result > from IETF discussions), and ask them too. I'll contact all relevant authors and ask about it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
