Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem

[Eric Burger]

Agreed. And more to the point, I am quite disappointed that while we make it abundantly clear that contributions, if published, clearly become the property of the IETF Trust, we still talk about Authors as individuals writing original documents, instead of Editors, who work at the behest of WG Chairs. That concept goes way, way, way before 5378.

On Feb 8, 2009, at 5:53 PM, rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:

Sorry for this Blackberry response.



Ray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From: "Contreras, Jorge"
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:46 -0500
To: <john-i...@jck.com>; <nar...@us.ibm.com>; <rpellet...@isoc.org>





----- Original Message -----
From: John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com>

Sent: Sun Feb 08 17:38:10 2009




--On Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:24 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
<jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com> wrote:

> Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would recommend
> leaving 6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was
> circulated.
>
> 6.c.iii
>
>> OLD:
>>
>> > iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
>> >  Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such
>> >  Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the IETF Standards
>> >  Process:
>>
>> "does not wish" is not right. The issue is that the current
>> author of the document is unable (for whatever reason) to
>> make assertions about the pre-5378 material.
>
> I think "does not wish" is right, as it gives the new
> Contributor maximum flexibility in withholding the right to
> make non-IETF derivative works if his Contribution includes
> pre-5378 Material.  I don't see any of the proposed changes
> making this clearer or better.
>...

Jorge,

I think people are trying to make two specific points.  If you
tell us that both are irrelevant, then I, for one, will accept
that and move on.  The points are:

(1) This language should not let a submitting author (a term
that is a tad more precise than "Contributor" for this purpose,
but substitute as you like) off the hook for compliance with the
letter and intent of 5378 for his or her one new, post
whenever-November-10-is, contribution.  If the Note Well, or
5378 itself, or something else, takes care of that regardless of
what the workaround text says, it would be helpful to clarify
that somewhere.

(2) As a submitting author, I may be so convinced that 5378 is a
wonderful thing that I would dearly wish, with all of my might,
that I could offer a document in full compliance with its text
and intent.  But I may just not have enough rights to do that
(something wishing is unlikely to cure)  and hence have to opt
for IETF use only.   Some of us would like to avoid an assertion
that we "wish" to not provide the broader rights as it may be
counterfactual.   That distinction may make absolutely no
difference from an IPR standpoint, but some of us have an
allergy to IETF procedural rules that require people to assert
things that aren't true.

    john

Neither 'wish' nor 'elects' is accaeptable to me because it seems to place a duty on the Contributor to ascertain the desires of the pre-5378 contributor, a tasking on the contributor that I wish to avoid with the language proposed. Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less value- laden than "wish"? To: Contreras, Jorge; Thomas Narten <nar...@us.ibm.com>; Ray Pelletier <rpellet...@isoc.org> Cc: Trustees <trust...@ietf.org>; wgcha...@ietf.org <wgcha...@ietf.org>; ietf@ietf.org <ietf@ietf.org>; i...@iab.org <i...@iab.org >; i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org>; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > Subject: RE: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf