Internet-Draft Derivative Works May 2026
Sayre Expires 7 November 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
General Area Dispatch
Internet-Draft:
draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative-00
Updates:
5378 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Best Current Practice
Expires:
Author:
R. Sayre

Derivative Works

Abstract

By reading this document ... you consent to nothing.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the WG General Area Dispatch mailing list (mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org), which is archived at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/gendispatch/documents/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch/.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 November 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document updates Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust [RFC5378].

2. Derivative Works

In [RFC5378], there is a quite expansive definition of "Contribution". There is also a mechanism described that limits the right to produce derivative works. This mechanism applies to Contributions. This update narrows that clause to technical specifications, like Internet-Drafts or other specifications. It no longer applies to correspondence, such as email, appeals, or YouTube videos of IETF meetings. Inserting those clauses makes it difficult for people to respond, and inhibits collaboration. The very point of collaborating about the internet over the internet.

IETF correspondence MUST NOT include restrictions on derivative works. This restriction covers text that is intentionally inserted and also includes automatically inserted terms inserted by corporate email software. Both variations are disruptive.

It is always possible to publish an Internet-Draft with a restrictive derivative works clause.

All other Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust [RFC5378] remain in place. Please don't be annoying.

3. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

4. Security Considerations

This document prevents a Denial-of-Service attack.

5. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

6. Normative References

[RFC2026]
Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC5378]
Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Author's Address

Robert Sayre
San Francisco, CA
United States of America