At 14:58 19-01-11, Donald Eastlake wrote:
It depends. That's why there are different versions of the boilerplate
depending on what rights the submitter is granting to the IETF.
I'll reproduce the notice for completeness:
"This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License."
I gather that an IETF Submission with the above notice allows the
IETF to have change control on the work.
Generally, yes. There's nothing wrong is such discussion if there
appears to be a WG consensus to do so. You refer to this hypothetical
submission as a "work", which is a technically correct copyright term,
but I believe you are thinking of it as a standards specification or a
part of or an amendment to such a specification. But it can just be
that the submitter wanted to use the draft format as a convenient way
to make a statement to the WG, presumably a statement relevant to what
the WG is doing. In such a case, the whole point would be
consideration and, if appropriate, discussion of that statement in the
WG.
I was thinking of it in terms of "work", BCP 78 and BCP 79. Thanks
for providing a better perspective.
It depends. That's why there are different versions of the
boilerplate. If the submitter has denied the IETF permission to
produce derivative works, then it seems improper to attempt to adopt
that draft as a WG draft. That's because being a WG draft implies WG
change control. However, the ideas in the draft could be used in a WG
draft.
At 15:46 19-01-11, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I generally reserve change control over non WG IDs because I have
experienced people hijacking a draft, changing the principles
entirely and adding their name.
Since there is an explicit allowance for that in the IPR regime, I
don't see why this would be an issue.
Some people post drafts with the notice quoted above. They have not
given any thought to the "explicit allowance" and end up being
unhappy when they are asked to give up control. The first case (see
my previous message) wasn't a pleasant situation.
At 18:43 19-01-11, Martin Rex wrote:
That's how I understand the second paragraph here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#page-7
Yes.
For what it's worth, there was a case where changes to the SDO
specification, which was not an IETF Submission, are only accepted
from members of the SDO. There is a parallel with the IETF here as
Contributions require acceptance of the Note Well, i.e. changes are
only accepted from IETF participants.
While the inclusion of the respective Copyright boilerplate by the
author in the the submission is technically sufficient,
I would consider it a courtesy to ask the original author for
consent anyway, especially if it is about a new I-D
(rather than an older RFC).
Agreed.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf