Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

Thanks Ray, that is reassuring.

I don't think this decreases the need for the -outbound document to be
as clear as possible about what the IETF needs are, though.

/Simon

Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> writes:

> In their April 3, 2008 meeting, the IETF Trustees discussed the
> outbound-IPR document, and found no issues with the advice given in
> the document. 
>
> More specifically, the Trustees intend to invite comments
> from the community, via the ietf discussion list, prior to issuing any
> new licenses.  The comment period(s) will begin as soon as proposed text
> for licenses have been drafted or selected. 
>
> The Trustees will not make any final decisions on licenses stemming
> from the
> outbound-IPR document until after taking the communities' feedback
> into account.
>
> For the Trustees,
> Ray Pelletier
> Trustee
>
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>>>>I agree with Joel.  We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
>>>>cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
>>>>or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
>>>>all.  Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
>>>>or, even better, pointing their lawyers at the potholes others have
>>>>hit would be very useful.  But this draft is not the place to do it.
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>I believe the document is the place to do it.  This is the only document
>>>were the IETF explains how the Trust should write its outgoing software
>>>license for code in RFCs.  Useful considerations for that process should
>>>go into the document.
>>>
>>>My proposed text does not suggest specific licenses.  That is a
>>>misunderstanding.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Simon,
>>	The list of potentially useful considerations in this arena is both long
>>and ever-changing.  Imagine, for a moment, that I suggested that the Trust
>>survey the legal departments of every organization which had sponsored
>>a nomcom-eligible participant in the IETF over the past 3 years asking, if the proposed
>>license was usable by their organization.  In some lights, this is a pretty reasonable
>>suggestion.   These are organizations with a demonstrated interest in our
>>output, and surveys can be a useful tool even when response rates are low.
>>Why not confirm that we are meeting the needs of core participants?
>>	The answer, basically, is that we want the output to be usable by
>>anyone, and privileging the people who pay kind of misses the point.  We
>>are giving instructions to the Trust to do the best job they can in making
>>sure that the output is usable by anyone for any purpose, no matter whether
>>they belong to group A, group B, or won't know for many years that they'll
>>have an interest at all.
>>	As for how to get in touch with them, trustees of the trust are the
>>IAOC.  The IAOC's membership is listed here:
>>
>>http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html
>>
>>I am sure they will listen carefully to your concerns and will consider the
>>issues you raise.
>>			regards,
>>				Ted
>>_______________________________________________
>>IETF mailing list
>>IETF@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf