please review 'application/pdf'

[Simon Josefsson]

Chris Lilley <chris at w3.org> writes:

> On Friday, October 24, 2003, 1:14:24 PM, Marc wrote:
>
> MM> On Friday 24 October 2003 00:13, Chris Lilley wrote:
> MM> <snip>
>>> I also see
>>>
>>>    o Accessing the document in ways not permitted by the document's
>>>      access permissions is a violation of the document author's
>>>      copyright.
>>>
>>> This strikes me as a useful statement and I am pleased by its
>>> inclusion.
> MM> <snip>
>
> MM> I think I need to disagree here.
>
> MM> I don't think it's appropriate for a technical document to make 
> MM> assumptions on the intent of the author of a document, be it PDF or
> MM> other.
>
> I agree. But in this case, its not assumptions. The intent is
> specifically described in the PDF. However, the field might not
> actually contain the © symbol and thus, in some jurisdictions, it
> might not count as a valid assertion of copyright unless the media
> type registration explicitly calls it out.

In some jurisdiction, simply _accessing_ a document does not violate
anyone's copyright.  To violate a copyright require more than just
accessing a document.

Furthermore, PDF files may contain uncopyrighted material, or might
not have a clear author.

I have to agree that it is inappropriate for a technical document to
make these legal statements.  If the text should remain at all, I
believe it would make sense to relax the wording somewhat.  Right now
the text make assertions that cannot be tested for technical
interoperability.

Legal requirements change over time, and the interpretation and
enforcement of such requirements should be left to lawyers or the
proper authorities.

> For a related, example, see the 'Copyright' keyword in the PNG
> specification.

I cannot find any text that is similar to the above in RFC 2083.
Could you provide a more detailed pointer?

Thanks,
Simon