Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

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

On 09-May-26 04:13, Scott Bradner wrote:
> if the number of published RFCs with the no derivative works language in
> them is so small why are we even thinking about making any changes?
> There does not seem to be a problem in that area to solve
> 
> the trial ballon case is, to me, more interesting and I'd like to keep that tool

Yes. Whether or not people choose to use it, which largely depends on
their in-house legal counsel, I agree that it's a pathway for new ideas
that we should keep. Our goal here is presumably to prevent a "no
derivative works" rider becoming a problem rather than a solution.

     Brian

> 
> Scott
> 
>> On May 8, 2026, at 11:58 AM, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>:
>>> We publish lots of RFCs, a very tiny fraction of them use the no derivatives clause.
>>
>> I think the interesting case, which I want to preserve, is Internet-Drafts. I agree the RFCs are kind of a sideshow. As RFC 5378 puts it:
>>
>> "Occasionally a Contributor may not want to grant publication rights or the
>> right to produce derivative works before finding out if a Contribution has
>> been accepted for development in the IETF Standards Process."
>>
>> thanks,
>> Rob S
>