JFC,
I have checked and from a legal point of view, the closing
signatures last week appear to make no difference to anybody's
legal liability. All recent RFCs carry a rather strong disclaimer
starting 'This document and the information contained herein are
provided on an AS IS basis...' and I
At 04:08 09/12/2005, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
snip
NB1: I fully understand that people from the darkwing are jealous
from those living on the brightside. :-)
channeling Lord Vader ... The force is with you young Skywalker, but
you are not a Jedi yet.
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd feel more comfortable if the
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
snip
The new section 9.5 would appear to read: (I note that it would be
useful to continuously update to actual document so we can quote it,
rather than relying in various e-mails updating portions of the
document)
Updated - see:
Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Updated - see:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/docs/IETF-Trust-12-08-05.pdf
Thanks!
The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to
grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms,
subject to Section 7.1, as the
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of
outbound rights we come up with.
That won't be possible, given the current
I don't see the problem here. For example, I believe the IETF could
license a tool under the GPL if it wanted to. I believe it would need
to require that work it paid for was assigned to the trust but that's
a fairly common practice.
___
Ietf mailing
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Dear Brian,
Great! the three stupid points I am
At 21:55 08/12/2005, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Dear Brian,
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
snip
NB1: I fully understand that people from the darkwing are jealous
from those living on the brightside. :-)
channeling Lord Vader ... The force is with you young Skywalker, but
you are not a Jedi yet.
NB2: I still wait for my response
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was
settled,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.)
What we then do once we have
Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible
to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products.
I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of
many in the
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Dear Brian,
Great! the three stupid points I am stubbornly interested in are
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.)
What we
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled,
before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it
seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over.
Remember
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled,
before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it
seem unclear
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has
previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Simon Josefsson
-- Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:17 AM
-- To: Brian E Carpenter
-- Cc: IAOC; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
--
-- Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--
-- Simon Josefsson wrote:
-- Hallam-Baker
Dear Brian,
thank you for your response. It calls for remarks (in the text).
At 11:09 06/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't understand the context of your question. All the announcements
about the draft Trust
Simon Josefsson wrote:
unacceptable to the Debian and FreeBSD community. They are
not in a legal position to grant the Trust all rights to
derivative works of the work that include portions of RFCs.
We're back at CC-BY vs. CC-BY-SA, aren't we ? If they are
unwilling to share alike they
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible
to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products.
I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of
many in the IETF community.
In the IPR WG, I have documented that implementations of
Behalf Of Simon Josefsson
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently
impossible to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or
proprietary products.
I believe the requirement to give up all rights to derivative
works of the IETF IPR would be unacceptable to the Debian
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Thanks! This was also pointed out in private e-mail.
The new text do solve my concern. I do think it is
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Brian
Simon Josefsson wrote:
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible
to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
What is the purpose of the trust if not to attempt to prevent
unauthorized derrivative works?
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal
statement of purpose in the formal Trust
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.)
What we then do once we have such control is then
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Dear Brian,
Great! the three stupid points I am stubbornly interested in are
gathered here! Please read
In your previous mail you wrote:
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible
to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products.
I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of
many in the IETF community.
= I
33 matches
Mail list logo
