Re: RFC 5378 "contributions"

<snip>
> I believe the IETF community has much to learn from the free software
> community when it comes to legal arrangements.  The end product (a
> community influenced document) is similar and the rules around legally
> protecting each contributor are also similar.  The IETF could require
> that contributors license their contributions under, if you want a short
> license, the BSD license, or, if you want a longer license text that
> allows for non-modifiable portions (which some people appear to think is
> necessary), the GFDL.  I proposed this model to think of code and text
> the same to the IPR WG, but could not gather sufficient people to agree
> with the idea.

Precisely; that is how the IETF works, gain rough consensus or your proposal
will not be accepted.  Having been not accepted in the IPR working group, I
see what I think is you (and others) trying to end run the WG's work and gain
rough consensus on the main list:-)

Underlying this, I believe that if only the IPR WG had not had to spend so
much time discussing and re-discussing and re-re-discussing ... this issue, then
may be, just may be, we would have had more time to focus
on the transition arrangements that we identified the need for in RFC5377 s.3.
In which case, this thread and all the other related ones would never have
occurred.

So, in all seriousness, I do see this re-raising of this issue, by you and
others, as impeding our ability to solve the problem that most needs solving,
that of
moving forward to a world where our Contributions do contain greater rights to
allow derivative works.  Which, ironically, is a prerequisite for what you want.

Tom Petch
>
> /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> 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