Thomas Narten <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Cullen Jennings <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't
know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts that I
am an co-author of. I can not even figure out who are all the people
that contributed significant text to the WG drafts much less imagine
how I will get permission from all of them to submit the draft under
the the 5378 rules.
Question. It is my understanding/assumption that the ONLY parties that
one must clearance from are the actual listed authors of the
document. Specifically, one does NOT need to go back to everyone who
might have contributed text. That, at least, is how we seem to have
been operating for a long time, i.e, it is only the listed authors
that matter.
I don't believe that is correct in this context -- I believe what
matters here is getting the necessary copyright from each respective
copyright holder (for work large enough to be copyrightable). The IETF
policies has been (and remain) that the copyright remains with the
contributor (or possibly his/her employer for work-for-profit
contributions). Since old contributions were only given to the IETF
under the RFC 3978 (or earlier) license, they need to grant the rights
in RFC 5378 too, before it can be used under the RFC 5378 rules.
Re-reading the initial answer to Sam's question, it uses the word
"contributor" which is defined in BCP 78, and is not the same as
"author". That is consistent with my view, however it would be useful
to get more thoughts on what the answer is here.
Btw, the FSF uses a limit of ten lines of text/code as a rough limit for
when a copyright assignment is necessary. The FSF is probably
conservative here though. I suppose a similar limit is applicable when
you need to contact the original contributor.
Having said that, things might be murkier than that if one looks at an
acknowledgment section to find everyone who might have contributed
"significant" text.
Indeed.
I.e., when incorporating comments from individuals in WGs, those
contributions are covered by the NOTE WELL. Does the NOTE WELL also
need to be extended to cover the expanded rights case? Please say no!
The NOTE WELL refers to BCP 78 so it is has already been extended to
cover the new expanded rights, hasn't it?
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf