Tim Salo wrote:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:56:02 -0700
> > From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
> >       [...]
> > PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
> > submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'?
> > I know _I_ have not been asked for such permission.
> 
> To the contrary, I believe that you granted broad permissions when you
> submitted a document as an Internet Draft.  For example, in
> draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-00.txt you write:
> 
>         [...]
>    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
>    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except for the right to
>    produce derivative works.
>         [...]
> 
> >From RFC 2026, Section 10.3.1.  All Contributions:
> 
>    l. ...  However, to the extent that the submission is or may
>       be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he
>       represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in
>       the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,
>       royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the
>       IETF under any copyrights in the contribution.  This license
>       includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the
>       contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are
>       based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
>       license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
>       license of the original contribution.
> 
> On a bad day, I might be inclined to ask: Am I the only one concerned about
> authors "forgetting" that they have granted broad rights to the
> ISOC and IETF?

Reading along further in the same document:

>    ... Internet Drafts that
>    have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts
>    directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole
>    purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards
>    activity and thus are not retrievable except in special
>    circumstances.

It isn't so clear that the rights in Sec 10.3.1 supercede the 
implicit agreement in Sec. 8.

Joe

Reply via email to