Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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: [phone], Fax: [phone]