Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 1:40 PM Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > Hi, I wrote it up:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative/
>
> Thanks for writing that.
>
> I don't think it make sense to permit I-D's to prohibit derivative works
> and at the same time forbid presentation or e-mail posts about the I-D
> to use the same clause.  It seems hard to discuss or present a
> no-derivative I-D in a presentation that can be derived by others and
> re-used in other's Contributions.  The policy should be consistent
> regardless of the form of contribution, which I believe it currently is.
>

That issue is what's being addressed.

  "A working group can discuss the Contribution with the
   aim to decide if it should become a working group document, even
   though the right to produce derivative works or to publish the
   Contribution as an RFC has not yet been granted"

Further including such no-derivatives clauses in correspondence about a
Contribution is just annoying/disruptive.

thanks,
Rob