Subject: Copyright status of early RFCs

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Apr 2006 21:39:28 -0000

A friend of mine wants to include copies of some early RFCs in a book.

My understanding is that anything published before 1976 without a
copyright notice, which would presumably include RFCs up through about
number 700, is in the public domain.

Does the IETF or IAB or RFC Editor take a position on this?

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:14:50 +0200

John,

At the moment there has been no transfer of rights in the early
RFCs to the IETF Trust, so I think you need to ask the
RFC Editor, or simply look at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.23Jan01.html

IANAL, but I have been told that in any case it is necessary
to check with the original authors.

    Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:03:43 +0000

not being the RFC editor, the IAB (or member thereof), or even the
 (as yet undefinable) IETF, I am not sure I am qualified to render
 a value judgement here.  That said, I am in posession of two bound
 volumes of the collected RFC series as of the date of publication of
 said volumes (modulo delays from the time the collection(s) were assembled
 and the time they were published).  One is circa 1995 and the other is
 circa 1997  ...  and I know of at least one CD containing the RFC archives
 that has been sold.
 The rules by which the IAB/IESG manage the IETF process have changed 
 dramatically in the past four years... so what was once possible/encouraged
 seems now to be treated as suspect or illegal beahviour.  Who knows 
 if the ISOC/IAB/IESG folks are attempting to claim copywrite on old RFCs (which
 used to claim "Distribution Unlimited")...

--bill

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 05:16:39 -0700 (PDT)

John and Brian -

My jaw dropped when I saw this query come through.

I thought that wide replication of the series was the whole
point.  If there are issues, I thought they had to do with derivative
works.  For example, a particularly risk-averse author of a new
book might query whether "publication of 3 random pages from each
RFC" falls within the scope of allowable actions.

I would take the position that checking with authors is not necessary
because permission has already been granted for replication of unmodified
RFCs.  It would not seem a stretch for the IETF chair, the IAB, and
the RFC Editor to take a similar position.

If a position is taken to the contrary, I would be more than happy
to undertake the publishing project and invite the relevant parties
to bring legal action.

Carl

---

From: John L <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:35:52 -0400 (EDT)

>> to check with the original authors.

I am getting the strong impression that nobody really knows the answer.

Since RFCs have been reprinted all over the place without permission over 
the past three decades, and there's a fairly strong presumption in law 
that you can't revoke permission that's already been given, I've told him 
that at least for the early RFCs with no copyright notice or claims, he 
can go ahead and use them.

R's,
John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:44:03 +0200

Carl Malamud wrote:
> point.

It is. And I can tell you that the IETF Trust's firm intention
is to maintain this. But the IETF, and the Trust on behalf of the
IETF, can't convey rights it doesn't own, and the question was
about early RFCs. The IETF is a mere 20 years old, younger than
RFC 791 for example. (BTW we should have celebrated the 25th
anniversary of that, I think.)

> If there are issues, I thought they had to do with derivative

But we are not lawyers. The legal advice has consistently been
to also check with the original authors. That's all I can tell you.

> to bring legal action

I'd guess that for all the RFCs that carry the magic words "Distribution
of this memo is unlimited" you'd be on fairly safe ground. But those
words aren't in the early RFCs.

     Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:49:35 -0400

> RFC" falls within the scope of allowable actions.

It's pretty clear/accepted that RFCs can be copied/reproduced freely
_in their entirety_, at least those that say "distribution unlimited".

What is much less clear is the issues surrounding excerpts, or
derivative works. The original query pretty clearly asked/asserted
whether older RFCs were "in the public domain".  That's pretty far
removed from "republication in their entirety".

> the RFC Editor to take a similar position.

IANAL, but if you've followed discussions in places like the IPR WG,
it doesn't take much to conclude that this is a complicated space in
which rules interpreted by real lawyers play a big role.

Thomas

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Apr 2006 16:29:50 -0000

>removed from "republication in their entirety".

Actually, what he has in mind is indeed republication in their
entirety.

>which rules interpreted by real lawyers play a big role.

Since approximately my entire income depends on copyright law (I write
books), I have looked at Title 17 and its interpretation pretty
closely.  I have to conclude that given the facts surrounding the
early RFCs: pre-1976, no copyright notice, many written on government
contract, and a history of widespread copying and reuse without
explicit permission, it'd be extremely hard to make a case that there
were any limits on their use.

R's,
John

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 08:53:34 +0900

>>which rules interpreted by real lawyers play a big role.

The conclusion is not surprising given the knowledge level of IETF
on IPR issues demnstrated in this thread.

> were any limits on their use.

The point is "copyright notice". It was required in US on copyrighted
materials before 1989 (not 1976).

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement
was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention,
effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice
before that date could have entered the public domain in the United
States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in
certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further
information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular
38b.

So, in general, RFCs published before March 1, 1989 (RFC1093 is
the last one) are safe.

Note that there may be exceptions. For example, URAA may affect RFCs
994 and 995 authored by ISO, though copyright issues on DIS is too
complicated to be discussed here.

Note also that "fair use" clause should be applicable for most use
of RFCs including 994 and 995.

Note finally that my answer is valid only for US domestic use. Of
course, copyright issues on materials distributed world-wide through
the Internet is too complicated to be discussed here.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:28:11 -0700

>  used to claim "Distribution Unlimited")...
I think it's much more a question of "we won't pay your lawyer's bills 
if someone sues you over this" than a desire to exert any form of control.

I think all the IAB, IESG, IETF trust etcetera WISH for all RFCs to be 
freely copyable in their entirety.

Unfortunately, wishes don't make it so.

                                  harald

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:41:12 +0200

> freely copyable in their entirety.

The 'entirety' is the key word here, as the cd's and prints Bill mention
contain the unmodified complete RFC's. That is, the versions I read
where contained complete unmodified RFC's and I expect them to be that
way too.

I have to note that I have a good number of books, specifically IPv6
ones, which contain excerpts of varous RFC's, even the newest ones.

It's indeed a 'who is going to pay for the lawyer riddle' in most of
these IPR/Copyright things ;(

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:48:28 -0700

> ones, which contain excerpts of varous RFC's, even the newest ones.
In the IPR WG meeting in Dallas, the WG seemed to indicate that it 
*wants* the right to use unmodified quotes/excerpts (any length) to be 
available to all too - I still have to make the call on the mailing list 
before declaring that the IPR WG has consensus on this point.

But that finding of consensus is relatively new - and it still doesn't 
change the *legal* status of preexisting RFCs.....

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:55:57 -0400

However, it seems that rather than having each individual chase after 
authors, at least one of whom is unfortunately no longer with us, 
wouldn't it make sense to have the Trust sent a release form to the 
authors so that they can grant retroactive permission equivalent to the 
"modern" RFCs?

This would put action behind the desire.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:38:30 +0200

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> authors so that they can grant retroactive permission equivalent to 
> the "modern" RFCs?
>

In the IPR WG meeting, Lucy Lynch said, on behalf of the trust:

 >Lucy Lynch:
 >We plan to solicit donations to the Trust, including donations from 
early authors and things like the
 >video assets from the mbone broadcasts. We can not say “we 
unilaterally own them, give them to us”.

I guess she'd be happy to get offers to help.