On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it personally
> or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right in
> any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your peace.
> Otherwise, I think it best that the IETF Trust exercise its rights under its
> joint copyright to do whatever is deemed appropriate and in the public
> interest, as determined by the IETF Trustees and its legal counsel, and not
> ask permission.
>
> /Larry
>
are you talking about -all- IETF related documents (IDs, postings,
april 1st RFCs, etc...) or RFCs that are standards? (discounting
BCPs, Informational RFCs, etc)
for a period of time, text like this appeared in at least a dozen
documents:
"This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
is not granted."
there were even a few documents that had explicit copyright statements
that excluded ISOC & IETF from doing anything with the document, other
than the right to publish for the period of performance for an ID, e.g.
no longer than six months.
one reaction to that was the promulgation of the "Note Well" legal
advice
and the path that lead us to this point.
So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a
private
ownership right in the materials they generated. I think that the IETF
Trust should be very careful in using/reusing that material, esp w/o
asking permission.
There, I've spoken up ... reserving my right to speak now and later on
this
topic. (not going to "forever hold my peace").
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
