On 9/13/2012 10:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all
IDs.
I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note
wells, etc., and it's not as simple as "it's the IETF's right" to do
anything except - maybe - going forward with a new copyright statement
for IDs.
Joe
On 9/13/2012 10:10 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I think Joe is right here. What the real issue is is simply that you
have no actual way of proving #7 and this process is so bad it fails to
meet the basic IP Licensing Process Rules that *** ALL *** commercial
and academic providers are tied to in the real world so this is more of
the IETF's actions about its ability to create RIGHTS in a legal sense
for anyone to anything it cannot formally prove it has legal power of
attorney over.
If you dont own it - granting a third part rights to something over an
electronic transport is actually a criminal act AFAIK.
Todd
10.3.1. All Contributions
7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the
contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and
agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the
contributor.
By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet
Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open
and
*> free access to IETF documents for which license and right have
*> been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this
*> section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is
*> perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its
*> successors or assigns.
So which specific part of "including Internet-Drafts and RFCs"
and "This warrent is perpetual" caused your impression that
there was a time-limit on an I-D contribution?
-Martin
btw. rfc2026 10.3.1 (2) looks like an explicit non-policy for
dissemmination
or termination of dissemination to me:
2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty
to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution.
I would be OK with a single person from (IESG member or IETF Chair)
quickly decides about suspending dissemination of a document based on
personal judgement and that the IESG wiggles out by themselves an
informal procedure (rather than a formal policy) for safeguarding
the process (from bias and abuse). This cuts into their time budget
and seems to not be a concerningly frequent occurence to spend
much polish on it at this point.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5267 - Release Date: 09/13/12
--
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended
recipient.