Subject: open protocols

From: victor nunes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:13:18 -0300

Hello, I would like to clarify a doubt about the RFCs

Copyright The IETF allows you to copy, publish RFCs?

All protocols that are part of the architecture of TCP / IP are open?

Thanks, Victor

-- 
“Encarada do ponto de vista da juventude, a vida parece um futuro
indefinidamente longo, ao passo que, na velhice, ela parece um passado
deveras curto. Assim, a vida no seu início se apresenta do mesmo modo
que as coisas quando as olhamos através de um binóculo usado ao contrário;
mas, ao
seu final, ela se parece com as coisas  tal qual são vistas quando o
binóculo
é usado de modo normal. Um homem precisa ter envelhecido e vivido
bastante para perceber como a vida é curta”.

        (Poema de Arthur Schopenhauer)

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:17:25 -0700

> All protocols that are part of the architecture of TCP / IP are open?

No. Only those protocols implemented on the basis of a specific license.
The IETF does NOT own the underlying license rights to TCP/IP in ANY WAY.

For the record TCP/IP actually probably still belongs to the US
Government as it was originally produced under a Department of Defense
contract with BB&N about 40 years ago and nothing about its ownership
has ever been handed over to anyone that I know of.

We can ask Len K and Vint Cerf though, they may be able to clear that up
some more. But my general gut feeling is that since the NTIA agreement
was never codified beyond the original MOU ICANN actually owns nothing.
So the ISOC's license (that's what the IETF produces its authority
under) holds no power over things it does not own like TCP for instance.

Todd Glassey
> 
> Thanks, Victor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:46:40 -0400

It's all bit complicated but, yes, anyone can publish copies of RFCs,
including translations into other languages. (See
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.pdffor
latest provisions.)

Patent questions can be even more complex but, generally speaking, anyone
involved in the IETF process should make their claims known. See
http://www.ietf.org/ipr/. (It is always possible that there are those not
involved with the IETF process who have patent claims.) Depending on your
definition of "open", no, not all protocols approved by the IETF or
documented in RFCs are unencumbered.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
[email-masked]

2010/5/21 victor nunes <[email-masked]>

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:30:01 -0700

> documented in RFCs are unencumbered.

Which is the point - copying IETF protocol specifications does NOT
provide a legally provable license to implement that protocol for any
purposes other than the reproduction of the image of the RFC itself.

Todd

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:06:04 +0200

> has ever been handed over to anyone that I know of.

Interestingly, RFC 793 doesn't appear to have any copyright claims. I'm not sure when it stopped being necessary to have one of those in order to be granted copyright in the US.

I'm not sure though how many rights one can hold to a protocol separately from the copyright on the specification. Obviously independent implementations don't violate any copyrights, and I'd be surprised if there were trademarks or patents on TCP. If those ever existed, the trademark obviously wasn't defended and the patents have expired.

(BTW TCP, IP and family are from ~ 1981, postdating the original ARPANET NCP protocol by a decade.)

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:26:11 -0400

On May 27, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Interestingly, RFC 793 doesn't appear to have any copyright claims.  
> I'm not sure when it stopped being necessary to have one of those in  
> order to be granted copyright in the US.

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

"Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the  
public domain upon publication. Works published without notice between  
1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention  
Implementation Act, retained copyright only if efforts to correct the  
accidental omission of notice was made within five years, such as by  
placing notice on unsold copies."

As RFC 793 was published in September 1981, I would assume (but I am  
not a lawyer) that RFC793 is in the public domain.

Regards
Marshall

>
> I'm not sure though how many rights one can hold to a protocol  
> separately from the copyright on the specification. Obviously  
> independent implementations don't violate any copyrights, and I'd be  
> surprised if there were trademarks or patents on TCP. If those ever  
> existed, the trademark obviously wasn't defended and the patents  
> have expired.
>