Julian Mehnle wrote on Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:34 PM -0600:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".
Sure, but the question is: do we _want_ to tell our subscribers that?
I'm feeling very reluctant.
I think we want to say this explicitly. Without that, there is always
the question of whether the archives reflect the actual discussion that
took place.
I'd prefer us to be very, very conservative with changing the IPR
nature of spf-discuss.
Yes. My gut feeling is that it's minimally better than now, the
IETF trust has a lawyer, unlike say openspf.org - but actually
openspf.org is no legal entity, and the SPF discuss list is managed
under listbox rules with list owner Meng.
You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue what it _is_ at
the moment ?
Since no explicit agreement has been made, everyone has copyright on
their articles, probably with an implied license to redistribute.
Everything else (quoting, etc.) is covered by fair use.
IANAL, but as a public list user, I can tell you that interpretation
would make the discussion not public and far from transparent. List
contributors need to know that *all* submissions are public from the
moment of posting, and that exceptions are not available to anyone. An
explicit statement to this effect keeps the process transparent.
Franks suggested disclaimer appears a good way to accomplish that. If
the IETF consulted legal counsel when putting that together (did they?),
we likely won't do better on our own.
--
Seth Goodman
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735