RE: Last Call: 'IETF Rights in Contributions' to BCP

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> A third issue is that the abbreviated notice for MIB and PIB modules
> in Section 5.6 does not seem to seem to be entirely appropriate for
> a MIB or PIB module for which the IETF does not own change control.
> The submission-rights draft says:
> 
>    a. in MIB modules, PIB modules and similar material commonly
>       extracted from IETF Documents, except for material that is being
>       placed under IANA maintenance, the following abbreviated notice
>       shall be included in the body of the material that will be
>       extracted in lieu of the notices otherwise required by 
>       Section 5:
> 
>          "Copyright (C) <year> The Internet Society.  This version of
>          this MIB module is part of RFC XXXX;  see the RFC itself for
>          full legal notices."
> 
> Specifically, it does not seem reasonable to me to require mention of
> ISOC but not to allow mention of the organization that originally
> produced the MIB module and that retains change control over it.  In
> fact, I would think that the nature of the copyright notice in the MIB
> module (and even whether there is one) should probably be determined
> by the party that is granting permission to republish it;  after all,
> the abbreviated copyright notice covers a derivative work (the
> extracted MIB module), not the RFC from which it was extracted.
> 
To this comment, I would say: If a other organisation wants to 
publish an (informational or other) RFC that contains a MIB or PIB
module, and they are not willing to let people extract the MIB or
PIB module, then I do NOT see any justification for publishing the
document as a RFC at all.

I do agree that maybe some mention of the original owner of the
material could (should?) be listed here. But I am not a copyright
lawyer, so I leave it to people who are knowledgable in that space.

Bert