Re: RFC 5378 "contributions"

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
>
> If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
> effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
> lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
> suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing, a plain-sense

John, I am not a lawyer, you are (AFAIK) not a lawyer, and if the IETF  
counsel
says otherwise, I would just let this one lie.

The reason why I do not agree with this reasoning is that these rights  
are
claimed through authorship. If I do not claim authorship in your draft
because you use my text, when I have ample opportunity to do so, then  
I have (in my opinion)
effectively lost them, especially in this context (where there is a  
note well,
an assumption of joint contributions, etc.).

In another context, I know that this is why songwriters
can be so vociferous about getting their name as co-authors when a
song is published - that is how they get royalties.

Yes, I am sure that there are corner cases here, but one thing
I have found about legal affairs is that there are always corner cases.
No legal matter is ever sewn up 100%, and judges actually do take into
consideration when things are done "on advise of counsel." We have it,  
we should use it.

Regards
Marshall


>
> reading of 5378's definition of "Contributor" means that I have
> to go back, find that person, and get permission to post that
> draft today (without a disclaimer), just because, in making the
> posting, I'm asserting that rights are in place that were not
> granted when the Contribution was made.
>
>
>    john
>
> * I've said this several times before, but neither common sense
> nor fairness permits the IETF to say "RFC 5378 became effective
> when it was published the first week in November, therefore any
> comments, contributions or drafts that appeared after that date
> constitute grants of permission under 5378's rules" ...
> especially in the absence of any specific notice to that effect
> on relevant mailing lists, the presence of a Note Well in the
> IETF registration packet that referred to the old rules, etc.
> Those of us who trust that common sense interpretation (or who
> have been given legal advice that the odds of a judge accepting
> an early-November date contrary to that interpretation are
> fairly small) need to behave as if we cannot assume that
> Contributions made before late November or early December do not
> imply permission to use the Contributions under 5378 rules.
>
> --On Wednesday, January 14, 2009 22:52 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge
>> wrote:
>>> No, absolutely not.&nbsp; Use of pre-5378 materials in the
>>> IETF standards process has never been an issue, only use
>>> outside the IETF is problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but
>>> not the earlier rules).
>>
>> Why is the actual situation of the use relevant?
>> "Contribution" is defined in section 1a of RFC 5378, and it
>> plainly says that mailing list posting and anything one says
>> at the microphone in any meeting is included in the
>> definition.  In section 5.1, RFC 5378 says that, by submitting
>> the Contribution, the Contributor is "deemed to have agreed
>> that he/she has obtained the necessary permissions" to enter
>> into the agreement allowing the IETF to use the Contribution
>> according to the new rules.
>>
>> So, just because the Contribution doesn't _happen_ to end up
>> in use outside the IETF by virtue of the IETF's actions does
>> not mean that a Contributor doesn't have to obtain the rights
>> to allow such re-use.  I believe that the _intent_ of 5378 is
>> ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf