--On lørdag, juni 14, 2003 20:59:08 -0400 Kee Hinckley
<nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 9:39 PM -0400 6/13/03, Paul Judge wrote:
Is there a particular sentence that is unclear to you? The text is
directly from RFC 2026.
"By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions
on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he
represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the
contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in
addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the
actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was
made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on
his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and
any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.
Well, part of the problem is that there are only two sentences, but there
are about half a dozen sub clauses.
rest assured that the new version has many, many more sentences :-)
I think I understand the first sentence, but it raises more issues than
it helps. What does "represents" mean? Does that mean I need to stick a
clause in every suggestion I make, stating that this is not an official
statement from my organization?
actually it means that you don't have to stick explicit clauses into your
statements, because you are "deemed to agree".
But anyway, the first sentence simply
seems to say that by the acting of contributing a (something, not clear
what) I'm agreeing to the following terms, and I'm agreeing to them for
everyone who I might possibly represent. The more I think about that, the
more I find it unacceptable. Agreement should be explicit, not implicit.
(Sounds like we're defining spam here :-).
It's supposed to be more an encoding of common sense:
If you claim to speak on behalf of others, we have a right to assume that
you have secured the right to speak for them; if you claim to not speak on
behalf of others, we have a right to assume that you have secured the right
to speak on your own.
If you get into trouble because you spoke when you shouldn't, that's your
problem, not the IRTF's.
The second sentence is the one that lost me. After reading it several
times I think it means.
The submitter promises that everyone with ownership of the
contribution has been aware of, and agrees to, these terms.
Now that I understand that, I don't find it acceptable either.
You need to define "contribution". Are we talking a formal contribution
made to the ASRG as in "here is my document, documenting what I think we
ought to do"? Or are we talking about the bunch of us bouncing around
ideas and making suggestions. Because if it's the latter, then I think
there are a number of people on this list who are going to have to pull
out. --
By the terms of RFC 2026 as clarified by the IPR WG, any time you send to
an IETF mailing list, you are making a contribution.
If you bounce an idea off the list that you know is patented, or otherwise
encumbered by IPR, it's your responsibility to tell us; if you don't know
that it is, you don't have a responsibility to spend research time to find
out if there is.
But this is the IRTF, not the IETF, and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I speak
for any of them..... this is MY opinion of what it means....
Harald
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg