Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

[Jacob Appelbaum <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

On 5/8/26 19:28, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Jacob Appelbaum  <[e-mail]> said:
>> Could we set the standard that people making contributions are 
>> automatically placed into the public domain?
> 
> That's not how copyright law works.

Communities that set very similar terms to what I suggested do exist. 
One relevant example is https://openverse.org/ where they say; "All 
Openverse content is under a Creative Commons license or is in the 
public domain"

Many U.S. Government works are placed into the public domain by virtue 
of not being granted copyright protections. Other information controls 
exist, of course, such as the classification system by the Executive 
Branch. The right to be forgotten in Europe exists, of course.

There are essentially two things at play with my suggestion.

One is setting the expectation of content and the terms under which IETF 
will treat the data moving forward. A reality here is that copyright 
abolition is nearly here with automated consumption of all IETF data on 
a regular basis. It may be that there will be meaningful push back on AI 
related copyright abolition but I doubt it very much at this point.

The other is jurisdictional and indeed may require special steps. For 
example a public domain dedication. In some areas of the world, the 
moral rights of the author can't be waived, and there are probably many 
other related considerations.

However, by making a contribution, I am agreeing to some IETF terms that 
the IETF is setting as the standard for participation. Enforcement and 
validity for each contribution is something else entirely.

 > The rules for public domain vary a lot from one country to another.

I agree. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation around the 
Public Domain and especially around the Public Domain Europe. I have 
long enjoyed this analysis: https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html

The United States and Delaware in particular _do_ allow for Public 
Domain dedications from my understanding of the situation.

Creative Commons Zero is a relatively popular way to express the same or 
at least a very similar concept vetted for the U.S. legal context and 
written for the complications of the rest of the world. The lawyers 
involved with CC0 are credible, so it appears a viable way to accomplish 
the goal.

> In some European countries there are rights you cannot disclaim, so
> you can't put your work into the P.D. even if you wanted.

Do you have a specific European country in mind as a concrete example?

I live in Europe where I write Public Domain declarations for Free 
Software regularly. I have seen people claim a similar concept to your 
statement, and some even claim that Public Domain software isn't Free 
Software. The FSF is pretty clear that it is a valid way to produce and 
release noncopyleft Free Software: 
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware

> 
> Also, I do not think we would want our documents to be public 
> domain.

That is probably the core discussion worth having as it may be that the 
Public Domain as a goal is not desirable. There is merit in the Public 
Domain from my perspective but I see several options.


In particular, I would like to see corporate contributions without 
no-derivative exceptions as a way to reduce any undue influence related 
to their exercise of copyright over the IETF. I would like the IETF to 
have the power over other corporations here and not the other way 
around. Ideally, I want the average internet user to have that power. By 
the numbers, it sounds like the carve out isn't used often but that any 
time recently that an individual tries to use it, they're moderated.

I was recently warned by a chair of the tls list for _quoting an email_ 
when replying to an email that merely _contained_ a disclaimer. That is 
an absurd situation in my view. Enforcement can be more disruptive than 
the thing itself, especially if the thing itself carries no weight.

As a minimum, I want to be able to dedicate an email in the public 
domain without as being ruled disruptive. That is well within the IETF's 
power and it does not create a novel restrictive legal situation.

The middle ground might be a policy that confirms that individuals are 
free to do this and that does not require it as the standard for all. I 
could live with that standard but it seems imbalanced.

> Someone could take a draft or an RFC, change a few numbers 
> and change MUST to MUST NOT in a few places, distribute a broken 
> version, and we would have no recourse.
> 

I would welcome an example where the IETF exercised this recourse that 
you posit exists. I completely believe this is possible, and I could 
even believe that it has happened. I am unaware of a specific historical 
example. Is there one that comes to mind? I guess it would greatly 
inform my perspective here.

> We are fortunate that our copyright policies were designed by a 
> lawyer who is literally the world's greatest expert on the topic and 
> has published scholarly papers about it. 

That sounds pretty good, I agree. Could you share a specific citation?

> Tweaking it around the 
> edges makes sense, throwing it out would not
My general hope is to see that the corporate exception is reduced from 
what has been described in this thread. When there is a carve out of the 
policy, I would like that it doesn't give rights to a corporation that 
aren't also afforded to the individual internet user.

The Public Domain as the default may level the playing field for regular 
people who have even fewer avenues for recourse than most corporations. 
It may change the economics for corporate contributors in a way that is 
positive or perhaps it would be a non-starter. It might be worse. I 
could believe that it might be perceived as too risky to even consider.

The no-derivative works situation now seems to balance in favor of 
corporations and in favor of allowing citing of copyrighted corporate 
works. It is clear that at least some individuals aren't welcome to 
assert the same claims. That doesn't fit with the spirit of the IETF 
representing the internet user first in my humble opinion. Ideally 
almost any right afforded to any participant should be available to all 
participants equally.

Reducing corporate power by eliminating that carve out as suggested by 
another in this thread seems a fairly reasonable suggestion. Certainly a 
less radical change than blanket Public Domain, but the suggestion 
doesn't really go far enough. I am also open to something different if 
it would additionally benefit the regular internet user.

Kind regards,
Jacob Appelbaum