--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:17 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
For the lawyers on here, I'm hoping that silence now,
particularly by the major IETF contributors on this list, will
be interpreted as laches or waiver if one of them later claims
an exclusive copyright interest in any IETF RFC.
Larry,
Please don't ask me to waive anything, explicitly or implicitly,
without identifying who you are representing in this matter and
related ones... or making a clear enough statement that you are
working strictly pro bono and in your perception of the public
interest to create COI or other problems should you later choose
to represent some particular interest in the area.
Failure to do either while pressing IETF participants to
disclose what we might or might not do in the future, or waive
the right to do anything by not making such a disclosure,
borders on the sort of activity that has given your profession a
reputation for being ethically challenged in many lay quarters
(from Shakespeare's recommendation about how to dispose of the
problem forward and probably much earlier).
I trust that even the most creative of lawyers cannot interpret
my comments above, or Bill's similar ones, as "silence". While
I cannot speak for anyone else, and would not try, I don't
believe you can either (at least without identifying them as
parties with whom you have a client-attorney relationship).
Just my opinion.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf