there seems to be an assertion of evil intent here that is not the case
1/ the IETF requests the mininum rights from an author that it can get
away with so that the author can have maximun flexability with
the author's own text - see section 7.1
The non-exclusive rights that the IETF needs are:
a. the right to publish the document
b. the right to let the document be freely reproduced in the formats
that the IETF publishes it in
c. the right to let third parties translate it into languages other
than English
d. except where explicitly excluded (see Section 5.2), the right to
make derivative works within the IETF process.
e. the right to let third parties extract some logical parts, for
example MIB modules
The authors retain all other rights, but cannot withdraw the above
rights from the IETF/ISOC.
2/ part of what the IETF asks for is for the ability to create revised
versions of the document (e.g. to create new versions of a standard)
within the IETF process - the IETF is not interested in helping 3rd
parties create new versions of IETF standards without the IETF's
involvement (we do not think its a good thing for someone else to
create a revised version of TCP and then claim its the only truse
version) - the author can authrize such a new version if the author
wants to but there has to be a specific OK
3/ the IETF is quite interested in letting people create manuals
etc - there is no intent to limit the ability for a 3rd party
to reproduce RFCs or parts of RFCs in manuals
I do not see any problem for the open source community unless that
community wants to create a new version of TCP and take parts of
existing IETF RFCs to include in its description of their revised TCP
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf