Julian Mehnle wrote:
What troubles me is the intellectual property issue.
I'm an "involuntary member" of their IPR WG because I don't
like the legalese in Internet drafts, and proposed to rename
"ipr=full3978" to "ipr=fullshit" for the xml2rfc DTD, using
whatever rules are actual at the time of submission.
For a mailing list like spf-discuss I think the main point
is: If somebody today demands to remove an article posted
by him from the listbox / GMaNe / gossamer / ... archives,
the list owner (Meng) or moderator (who's that here, Scott?)
can't do that. Maybe they can wrt listbox. Maybe I offer
to do it on GMaNe, maybe I don't want cash for the service.
Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".
So far the ordinary cases for ordinary folks. Then there
can be employees of IBM, MS, etc. with an urge to talk about
"intellectual property" of their employer on a public list.
Whatever problems that could cause, "NOTE WELL" again turns
it into "told you so", protecting the IETF trust.
I'd prefer us to be very, very conservative with changing
the IPR nature of spf-discuss.
Yes. My gut feeling is that it's minimally better than now,
the IETF trust has a lawyer, unlike say openspf.org - but
actually openspf.org is no legal entity, and the SPF discuss
list is managed under listbox rules with list owner Meng.
You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue what it
_is_ at the moment ? I never looked into listbox AUP, I can
only tell that GMaNe is run by Lars, and Lars does what he
likes best... :-)
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735