Contreras, Jorge wrote:
No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards
process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is
problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
Jorge - if the contributor's in a RC2026 controlled submission choose
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Cc: Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
So I wasn't on the IPR working group, but it seems to me
+1
--On Tuesday, January 20, 2009 15:20 +0100 Tom.Petch
sisyp...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
...
Underlying this, I believe that if only the IPR WG had not had
to spend so much time discussing and re-discussing and
re-re-discussing ... this issue, then may be, just may be, we
would have had more
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 03:20:20PM +0100, Tom.Petch wrote:
Underlying this, I believe that if only the IPR WG had not had to
spend so much time discussing and re-discussing and re-re-discussing
... this issue, then may be, just may be, we would have had more
time to focus on the transition
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
However, the theme were present in several discussions about simplifying
the procedures. One link (but probably not the best one) would be:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/3738
Implicit in that argument is that
Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu writes:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
However, the theme were present in several discussions about simplifying
the procedures. One link (but probably not the best one) would be:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/3738
Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu writes:
However, that presumably wouldn't be tree for allowing text or code to
be used in implementations, open source or otherwise --- I assume
that wouldn't require prior permission first, right?
Right, but only for code. See section 4 of
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:23 AM
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:50:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Consider the threat model here.
This threat applies ONLY to material that the Trust licenses to
third parties (such as,
On Jan 16, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Tom.Petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:23 AM
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:50:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Consider the threat model here.
This threat applies ONLY to material that
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 07:04:13AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
This raises a question. The IETF publishes relatively little code
compared to the millions of lines of open source code out there. How
do the large open source projects protect and indemnify themselves
and their participants in
At 16:23 15-01-2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
That I think is the key; each person can only warrant what they
themselves have authored. Something that might be worth looking at is
the Developer's Certification of Origin, which is how Linux Kernel
developers deal with contributions for the Linux
SM s...@resistor.net writes:
which gets incoproated into the kernel must have a Signed-off-by, like
this:
The IETF does not use version control to keep track of changes to a
document.
Version control is not needed to track changes.
Document changes cannot be compared to code contributions
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
No, absolutely not.nbsp; Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IANAL, but it seems to me that we should proceed on the assumption
that this would fall under fair use provisions. Anything else
would seem unreasonable to me.
IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this
I'm happy with the answer re. use of pre-5378 RFC material
on an IETF mailing list.
I'm not sure about the answer re. use in an Internet-Draft.
With respect to this, I think what Randy wanted to ask is:
Do we need to get contributor premission before using
material from an email posting made
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing, a plain-sense
reading of 5378's
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The reason why I do not agree with this reasoning is that these
rights are claimed through authorship.
That claim is precisely what I think is false, because RFC 5378 has
defined Contributor in a particular way, and then
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied
More to the point, the question at hand was to what happens to mailing
list discussions (or face to face discussions) which took place
*before* RFC 5378 was published. John's observation was that it
doesn't matter when the I-D or RFC is published, even if it is
published *after* RFC 5378, if it
: RFC 5378 contributions
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing
IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread, but the
phrase fair use does not appear in RFC 5378. Maybe it should.
Fair use is specific to the U.S. Most other countries have similar
legal concepts under other names like fair dealing, but they all
differ in minor ways. This would run
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some
John C Klensin wrote:
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing, a
Contreras
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:10 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:50:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Consider the threat model here.
This threat applies ONLY to material that the Trust licenses to
third parties (such as, say, the IEEE) for inclusion and
modification in their standards. (Just reprinting or translating an
RFC
Theodore Tso tytso at mit dot edu wrote:
So it's a problem if every single I-D and RFC author is going to have
to consult their own counsel before deciding that won't get into legal
trouble when guaranteeing that all of their text is appropriately
licensed.
I certainly won't be volunteering
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
However, the definition of
On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed
Title: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
- Original Message -
From: ietf-boun
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
No, absolutely not.nbsp; Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards
process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic
(ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
Why is the actual situation
To: randy_pres...@mindspring.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
Re: RFC 5378 contributionsNo, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in
the IETF standards process has never been an issue,
only use outside the IETF is problematic (ie
34 matches
Mail list logo
