On 4/28/04 7:32 AM, Gordon Fecyk sent forth electrons to convey:
"This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of RFC2026 _except that the right to produce
derivative works is not granted._"!
I think Microsoft scared him. Harry, don't scare my friends like that. :-)
:) Funny, but also a realistic possibility. I'd certainly be happy
with text that went something like this:
"This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of RFC2026 _except that the right to produce
derivative works is not granted, except a derivative work may be submitted as an I-D under the same terms as this I-D, and provided there are no IP claims made by the producer or the new I-D's contributers regarding the I-D, and it is only disseminated if published as an I-D."
Sort of a GPL for IETF standards.
This would all be much easier to resolve if Meng spoke.
Methinks this would pass IETF editor checks if the boilerplate was left
as is, and the additional permission offer added after it.
OT: Gordon, what MUA do you use?
It adds headers like this:
Thread-Topic: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!)
Thread-Index: AcQs+xOl87bgszZbRa+QpC/GoIgFcQAMiwWg
which aren't mentioned in any RFCs
instead of
References: <foo>
In-Reply-To: <c6lsjd$be7$1(_at_)xuxa(_dot_)iecc(_dot_)com>
(from RFC 822)
which my MUA doesn't understand, breaking threading.