On 2/8/09 at 5:52 PM -0500, Jorge Contreras wrote:
iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such
Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the IETF Standards Process:
"does not wish" is not right. The issue is that the current
author of the document is unable (for whatever reason) to make
assertions about the pre-5378 material.
I think "does not wish" is right, as it gives the new Contributor
maximum flexibility in withholding the right to make non-IETF
derivative works if his Contribution includes pre-5378 Material.
I don't see any of the proposed changes making this clearer or
better.
Would "elect" be less value-laden than "wish"?
Jorge, it makes no difference. Both "elect" and "wish" are incorrect.
First of all, "the Contributor" of the current document cannot
"elect", or for that matter "not elect", to "allow modifications of
Pre-5378 Material" that appears in the current document "to be made
outside the IETF Standards Process": In this case, "the Contributor"
does not hold the copyright on the Pre-5378 Material and has no
discretion to grant or withhold such permission. And I assume that
any "Contributor" *does* wish to allow modifications of Pre-5378
Material, but that doesn't matter, because "the Contributor" has no
right to make that choice. Ray's language is correct:
iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material for which the
Contributor of the pre-5378 material has not or may not have
granted the necessary permissions to the IETF Trust to allow
modifications of such Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the
IETF Standards Process:
This language seems unnecessarily dense, and since it includes "may
not", it has the same effect as "does not wish", doesn't it?
No it does not. This says that "the Contributor of the pre-5378
material" (*not*, as it says in the original, "the Contributor" of
the current document) may not have granted the necessary permissions.
I'm fine with leaving out the "has not" and making it only "may not",
but this is not at all the same as the original wording.
You really need to read over John and Ray's comments. The original
text is simply not correct.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf