copyright.txt
COPYRIGHTS AND PATENT RIGHTS IN RFCs
1 March 2005
_________________________________________________________________
This page summarizes the current rules governing RFC copyrights and
dislaimers on patent ("Intellectual Property") rights.
It is coordinated with the IETF documents [1]"IETF Rights in
Contributions", BCP 78/RFC 3978 and [2]"Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79/RFC 3979. These documents are
the result of a recent effort by the IPR Working Group of the
IETF working group of the IETF, replacing earlier versions BCP
78/RFC 3667 and BCP 79/RFC 3668.
An HTML version of this text is available at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html.
Earlier versions of this document:
* copyright.17Feb04.txt
* copyright.23Jan01.txt
_________________________________________________________________
BCP 78 (RFC 3978) specifies the copyright rules applicable to
RFCs, aligning these rules with modern copyright law. The rules
are generally intended to safeguard the integrity, future
availability, and usefulness of published RFCs but continue the
historical policy of free and open distribution and reuse of RFCs,
to the extent possible.
As explained in BCP 78, there are two classes of RFCs: IETF
submissions and RFC Editor ("independent") submissions. The rules
for copyrights on IETF submissions are fully defined in BCP 78, but
some aspects of these rules are left for the RFC Editor to define
for independent submissions. There is really only one essential
difference: the freedom to create derivative works; see below.
Topics:
o Reproduction Rules
o Derivative Works
o Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on RFC Content
o Boilerplate within I-Ds and RFCs
_________________________________________________________________
Reproduction Rules
The following rules control the reproduction of RFCs by third
parties:
1. Copying and distributing an entire RFC [1] without
changes:
1a. Copying for free redistribution is allowed and
encouraged. [2]
1b. Inclusion of RFC copies within other documents or
collections that are distributed for a fee is allowed. [3]
Note: In case (1b), it is a courtesy to ask the RFC author(s) and
to provide a copy of the final document or collection.
2. Translating RFCs into other languages: Translation and
publication of an entire RFC into another language is
allowed.
It is courtesy to inform the RFC author(s) of such
translation.
3. Copying and distributing an entire RFC with changes in
format, font, etc.: Changing format, font, etc. is allowed
only with permission of the author(s). With this
permission, rule 1. applies.
4. Copying and distributing portions of an RFC:
This is what the lawyers call "preparation of derivative works".
The rules are shown below.
NOTES:
[1] "Entire" includes all the copyright and IPR boilerplate.
[2] This case permits the present mirroring of RFCs on many web
sites.
[3] Anyone can take some RFCs, put them in a book, copyright
the book, and sell it. This in no way inhibits anyone else
from doing the same thing, or inhibits any other
distribution of the RFCs.
_____________________________________________________________
Derivative Works
+ Permissions for Derivative Works
Section 3.3 of BCP 78 specifies a restricted allowance for
derivative works from RFCs that were IETF submissions. An
author of one of these RFCs is required only to permit
derivative works for use within the IETF standards process
(although an author is free to permit more general usage).
This means, for example, that it may not be permissible
for a third party to extract text from an IETF submission
RFC for use in a "man" page or other system documentation,
even if credit is given.
For independent RFC submissions, however, the RFC Editor
requires that authors grant unlimited permission for
derivative works, with appropriate credits and
citations. In summary:
o 4a. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that
was an IETF contribution is allowed, but only for use
within the IETF standards process. Proper credit and
citations must be provided [BCP 78 Section 3.3.a(c)].
o 4b. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that
was an RFC Editor contribution is allowed. [BCP 78
Section 4.2a(C)] Credit and citations must be given.
+ No Derivative Works (NDW)
Since many Internet Drafts (I-Ds) represent work in
progress, I-D authors sometimes want to prevent all
preparation of derivative works based on their
documents. Although Section 5.2a of BCP 78 specifies "no
derivative works" (NDW) boilerplate that may be included
in an I-D, IETF rules generally do not allow NDW
boilerplate in documents used in the Internet Standards
process (see Section 7.3 of BCP 78). Use of NDW
boilerplate in an independent submission must be approved
by the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will generally allow use
of NDW boilerplate only for publication of proprietary
protocols or the publication of specifications developed
by other standards organizations, as discussed in Section
7.3 of BCP 78.
_____________________________________________________________
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
BCP 79 governs issues concerning possible intellectual property
described in RFCs. An IETF submission will include a
"Disclaimer of validity" [BCP 79 Section 5] boilerplate. For
RFC Editor submissions, BCP 79 requires this boilerplate if IPR
has previously been disclosed for this RFC; however, the RFC
Editor's policy is to always include this boilerplate. It may
be omitted from a independent submission only when it is clear
from the nature of the RFC contents that no intellectual
property rights could be claimed.
Note also that an RFC should not contain a notice of the
existence of specific relevant intellectual property (patents,
etc.). (This point is unclear in BCP 79, but the RFC Editor has
been informed that the IPR Working Group is quite clear about
it.)
_____________________________________________________________
Boilerplate Within I-Ds and RFCs
The normal last-page boilerplate in an RFC is shown for
[10]IETF submissions and for [11]RFC Editor (independent)
submissions. This boilerplate should appear in every Internet
Draft. This boilerplate has the following components:
+ Copyright Statement [BCP 78 Section 5.4]. Note that there
is a very small difference between the Copyright
statements for IETF submissions [BCP 78 Section 5.4] and
RFC Editor submissions.
+ Disclaimer [BCP 78 Section 5.5]
+ Disclaimer of Validity (of IPR claims) [BCP 79 Section 5]
Finally, the RFC Editor will add its own acknowledgment of
funding from the Internet Society at the end of the RFC.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________