[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] Re: Derivative Works: draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative-01

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 14-Jul-26 13:49, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14/07/2026 02:12, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Brian E Carpenter  <[e-mail]> said:
>>>> The thrust of the draft needs to change from "you can't" (when
>>>> you can) to "we'll ignore you if you do."
>>
>> The problem is that the text we're all referring to is an implicit threat that
>> the author might sue you if you violate the terms of the purported license. We
>> all have our opinions about how realistic that threat is, but if the IETF were
>> to say we can ignore it, it would have to indemnify people in the unlikely event
>> that the threat were carried out.
> 
> That might be fair, I dunno, as I don't worry about being sued
> on such a basis. Others might. Probably mostly those who have
> loads of lawyers who can do the worrying better. It is, in any
> case, nonsense.
> 
> It's also possible some of us might, based on the existence of
> such nonsense, avoid dealing with some substance.
> 
>> That is not a rathole I have any interest in
>> going near.
> 
> We're in a rathole already. I'd rather we fill that in in our
> chosen manner.

Indeed. But it's because of the sort of concerns John is raising that
the only sane procedure I can see is (a) decide what we'd like to say
and then (b) ask a lawyer. Trying to guess what the lawyer might say
while wordsmithing is while true {}.

    Brian