--On Thursday, January 29, 2009 0:58 -0600 Dean Willis
dean.wil...@softarmor.com wrote:
The real risk is where some other SDO can hold IETF liable for
damages induced by the irrational aggrievement of someone who
contributed to the IETF.
I might add aggrievement (rational or otherwise) of
On Jan 23, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Given the wide nature of what is a contributor, I would think that
*any* cautious document editor would want this boilerplate in their
document for *any* effort that has any contributions that might have
been made before 2008-11-10. Is
On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:39 AM -0700 1/24/09, Doug Ewell wrote:
John Levine johnl at iecc dot com wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here.
We're worrying about situations in which someone contributes
material to the IETF that
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:11:14AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
You are missing John's point, which you elided below the quote
above. If someone is a jerk and irrationally aggrieved, nothing we
say in a boilerplate will prevent them from suing the IETF and
incurring great costs in time and
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Wha the work-around appears to me to provide is a way for
contributors to say, But maybe I don't have them all. From my point
of view, that's less good than releasing the contributor from needing
to make such claims in the first place, but it's an improvement.
...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:36:29AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Wha the work-around appears to me to provide is a way for
contributors to say, But maybe I don't have them all. From my point
of view, that's less good than releasing the contributor from needing
to
--On Monday, January 26, 2009 11:01 AM -0500 Theodore Tso
ty...@mit.edu wrote:
...
The problem is the level of due care necessary such that
he/she can warrant that permissions has been obtained is not
defined. Is the reliance on RFC 5378 sufficient to deem that
permissions has been
On Jan 26, 2009, at 12:14, John C Klensin wrote:
If common sense were relevant here (and it may not be), Fred
gets notified of the Note Well and any changes to it in the
following cases:
If Fred cc's an IETF mailing list he's not on because a discussion on
another list has turned to how the
Ken == Ken Raeburn raeb...@mit.edu writes:
Ken That might be an argument for restricting posting to
Ken subscribers only. At least some mailing list management
Ken software will let you put yourself on a list but flagged as
Ken not to receive mail, if you already read it through
At 1:10 PM -0500 1/26/09, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think having an opt-in list of people who have agreed to IETF IPR
policy would be better.
That list could be pre-populated with email addresses from all current IETF
lists to which the note well has been sent.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:10 PM -0500 1/26/09, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think having an opt-in list of people who have agreed to IETF IPR policy
would be better.
That list could be pre-populated with email addresses from all current IETF
lists to which the note well has been sent.
That would
--On Monday, January 26, 2009 10:42 AM -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
That list could be pre-populated with email addresses from
all current IETF lists to which the note well has been sent.
That would seem to defeat the apparent purpose of this new
list, namely distinct and
At 08:01 26-01-2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
The problem is the level of due care necessary such that he/she can
warrant that permissions has been obtained is not defined. Is the
reliance on RFC 5378 sufficient to deem that permissions has been
obtained. For example, if Fred Flintstone submits
Paul Hoffman wrote:
That list could be pre-populated with email addresses from all current IETF
lists to which the note well has been sent.
Seems a bit silly to me. You're opting me in automatically to
some newish, demonstrably broken, IPR stuff? (5378 I mean.)
No thanks if that was your
Paul Hoffman writes...
Is the Trust OK with this being in essentially every single IETF
document for many years to come?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that's exactly the corner into which we are
painting yourselves, for any document that involves significant re-use of
material, i.e. beyond
--On Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:17 -0500 Dave Nelson
d.b.nel...@comcast.net wrote:
Paul Hoffman writes...
Is the Trust OK with this being in essentially every single
IETF document for many years to come?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that's exactly the corner into
which we are
John C. Klensin writes ...
And, while IANAL, my understanding from what we've been told
repeatedly is that fair use exemption is a US concept, so your
sentence should stop after significant re-use of material
So authors of scholarly papers in other countries can't lawfully quote and
cite
--On Saturday, January 24, 2009 10:07 -0500 Dave Nelson
d.b.nel...@comcast.net wrote:
John C. Klensin writes ...
And, while IANAL, my understanding from what we've been told
repeatedly is that fair use exemption is a US concept, so
your sentence should stop after significant re-use of
And, while IANAL, my understanding from what we've been told
repeatedly is that fair use exemption is a US concept, so your
sentence should stop after significant re-use of material
Many other countries have similar doctrines, often called fair
dealing in common law or written as specific
John C, Klensin writes...
The point is that different countries have different rules,
different names for the rules, and different criteria.
Right. I should have said fair use or whatever the corresponding legal
doctrine is called in your jurisdiction. Is there a generic,
John Levine johnl at iecc dot com wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here.
We're worrying about situations in which someone contributes material
to the IETF that ended up in an RFC, then later goes to court and
claims to be shocked and injured that someone else
At 10:39 AM -0700 1/24/09, Doug Ewell wrote:
John Levine johnl at iecc dot com wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here. We're
worrying about situations in which someone contributes material to the IETF
that ended up in an RFC, then later goes to court and claims
Ed Juskevicius edj@gmail.com writes:
The updated proposed legend text based on the discussion to date is as
follows:
Thanks for your work, I think the new text works.
I noticed that your proposed document contains another unrelated change,
and I'm opposed to approving that change.
The
Excerpts from Ed Juskevicius on Fri, Jan 23, 2009 12:29:33AM -0500:
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions
published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
comments on revised proposed legend text to work-around the
Pre-5378 Problem
...
I wonder if
Without obtaining... this document may not be modified
outside... is a stronger assertion than the Trust is in a
position to make. Would
--On Friday, January 23, 2009 10:28 -0500 Contreras, Jorge
jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com wrote:
...
Actually, those words are included in a legend that will be
applied by document authors. Thus, the speaker is the
author, not the Trust. The author is telling the Trust (and
everyone else)
At 12:29 AM -0500 1/23/09, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
The updated proposed legend text based on the discussion to date is as
follows:
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions
published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling
Hi.
I apologize for cluttering up these lofty discussions of IPR
theory and statements with a question about getting work done,
but...
--On Friday, January 23, 2009 0:29 -0500 Ed Juskevicius
edj@gmail.com wrote:
...
Please recall that some I-D authors have experienced
difficulty
; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Cc: 'Trustees'; 'Contreras, Jorge'
Subject: Document posting schedule pragmatics (was: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The
IETF Trustees invite your comments on revised proposed legend text to
work-around the Pre-5378 Problem)
Hi.
I apologize for cluttering up these lofty discussions
29 matches
Mail list logo
