RE: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 09 October 2013 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB50821F9EA2; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21jw24ndP5i7; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C6D21E8178; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r99I7WFZ018319; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:07:32 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r99I7VMi018301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:07:32 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Chris Griffiths' <cgriffiths@gmail.com>, 'SM' <sm@resistor.net>
References: <C2F0EF7B-9069-4A9A-A2DE-3549E8B71A40@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130924135945.0d561cd0@resistor.net> <9824D1EA-EDAA-4BFB-A9D0-A0AFEAE546CD@gmail.com> <C8BCDFAF-EBAC-4D0F-AD80-8320F22B9FF3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8BCDFAF-EBAC-4D0F-AD80-8320F22B9FF3@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:07:31 +0100
Message-ID: <07f701cec51a$6cc16bc0$46444340$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIVyLD2so6lMhMJRkYiESOWmefQhgIqgsPRAWFYocIC1P+ZK5krl9fA
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'Trustees Trustees' <trustees@ietf.org>, 'Nevil Brownlee' <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>, 'John C Klensin' <klensin@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:09:35 -0000

Hi Chris,

I have become confused between the permission necessary to republish the Tao,
and the request to republish under a Creative Commons license.

Can I try to clarify.

Do we or do we not grant permission for others to publish the Tao and the
translations of the Tao under section 3c of the TLP at
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf ?

Thanks and sorry for dragging this on.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris
> Griffiths
> Sent: 09 October 2013 15:44
> To: SM
> Cc: Trustees Trustees; John C Klensin; Nevil Brownlee; ietf@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
> 
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Chris Griffiths <cgriffiths@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 24, 2013, at 6:11 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
> >
> >> At 23:48 02-08-2013, Chris Griffiths wrote:
> >>> Issue 1
> >>>
> >>> We have recently been asked permission to republish the TAO with a
> creative commons license, but according to counsel, the current trust
agreement
> does not give the trustees the rights to do this.
> >>>
> >>> - Without specific language being added to the trust agreement, we cannot
> grant these types of requests.
> >>> - The current open request for a creative commons license from 6/18/2013
> cannot be completed.
> >>
> >> In term of "outgoing" rights the Independent Submission Stream is different
> from the IETF Stream.  The draft version of the Tao might offer a path
forward.
> Would it be possible to have it submitted through the Independent Submission
> Stream and use that version and changes to address the above request?
> >> I haven't looked into the process stuff.  It might be possible [1] to sort
that out
> once the legal hurdles are settled.
> 
> SM,
> 
> I wanted to follow-up with this specific request and advise that based on
> discussions with legal council and feedback from the Trustees that the current
> rules don't allow granting permission to republish this using the Independent
> Submission Stream, nor to grant a Community Commons license.  At this time we
> also do not have community consensus to prioritize a change to the rules in
order
> to meet this request.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Chris Griffiths