On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.
Cheers,
Andy
I agree with the following additional mods to the Trust License Policy
at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf
6. Text To Be Included in IETF Documents
c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations
If an IETF Contribution contains pre-5378 Material as to which the
IETF Trust has not been granted, or may not have been granted, the
necessary permissions to allow modification of such pre-5378 Material
outside the IETF Standards Process, then the notice in clause (iii) may
s/may/must
be included by the Contributor of such IETF Contribution to limit the
right to make modifications to such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF
Standards Process.
And let the Trust sort it out if and when a request is made and
approved by the community for modification of a document by a 3rd
party outside the standards process.
Further I would add a section to the TLP regarding the registration of
5378 licenses online only of those licenses obtained by the Trust to
approve the transfer of a document to a 3rd party. We don't need to
start an online registry of thousands of authors in the rare chance
the Trust may need the license one day.
Ray
Trustee
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim <swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org>
wrote:
John, I believe you read the consensus right. "authors obtain all of
the rights they are willing to".
Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
Hi.
I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
share an impression and suggestion.
While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
reopen old battles, etc., there is really only one issue at
this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
* try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
signoff from previous contributors or
* treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
of the rights if they are willing to do that but
otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
advocates. I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
more Internet-Drafts are written.
I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
choice, then we are finished. The Trustees would presumably
follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
existing workaround as permanent, and we would all move on.
IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
people with better ways to spend their IETF time going into
these efforts, etc.
Of course, YMMD.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf