--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the
viable options. My draft implicitly adds
(2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378
materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are
posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions.
To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to
require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2).
I am all in favor of authors trying for 2.5 if they have the
time and inclination although, mostly, I'd rather have them
spend time on technical work (Marshall's suggestion last month
that the Trust itself should take responsibility for rounding up
old rights has some appeal here). What I'm opposed to is
requiring authors of documents that might have had a very long
history to take responsibility for claiming that they have
identified all of the original contributors. My problem with
2.5, stated somewhat more aggressively than is probably
desirable, is that it requires the submitter of a 2.5 document
to stand up and say "I have identified all of those who might
claim to have rights in this document, will take responsibility
for getting that identification right, and obtained their
consent".
There is a possible 2.5bis, which would be something like "I've
made a good-faith, reasonable-effort, attempt to identify
everyone
and have the agreements from everyone whom that process
identified, but I make absolutely no warranty that I've
identified everyone or that other claims won't come up; if they
do, it is the user's problem, not mine."
Whether that is enough different in practice from my (2) to be
worth the complexity... I don't know.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf