--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 16:56 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
Dave Crocker wrote:
That was the culture. Law often
follows culture, since culture creates established practice.
I hope you're right.
May I ask: Is there anyone on this list who is asserting a
current copyright interest in any IETF RFC--on your own behalf
or on behalf of your company--that would encumber the freedom
of any IETF participants to copy, create derivative works, and
distribute that RFC in accordance with IETF culture?
So that we don't get assertions about either universal negatives
or about people who are assumed to give up the right to claim
copyright interest as a consequence of not answering your
Your question does not distinguish between uses by IETF
participants for IETF-related purposes (e.g., standards
development) and uses by people who participate in the IETF for
purposes not directly related to IETF work (e.g., insertion into
programs or their documentation whether conforming to those
standards or not). Was the failure to make that distinction
If it was intentional, is your question intended as a back-door
way to reopen the questions about whether the IETF intends
unlimited use of its material, with or without acknowledgements
and citation and regardless of purpose, that the IPR WG resolved
in the negative?
Finally, when you ask this question, are you asking as an
individual participant in the IETF process or as an attorney who
might be called upon to advise one or more clients on the
subject of dealing with the IETF and/or IETF-related IPR? If
the latter, would you mind identifying those clients and any
other interest you might have in the answers other than idle
p.s. Even if it were clearly true at one time, which some would
dispute, Dave's assertion about the present IETF culture is
controversial given, at least, the IETF's history and positions
about IPR and copyright over the last decade or more.
Ietf mailing list