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

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 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 certainly have no quarrel with that.  What I'm quibbling over is the
nature of the copyright notice (if any) that appears in the extracted
MIB module.

> 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.

I would also like to hear what the IETF counsel advises.

Thanks,

Mike Heard