Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

Yes. I'll accept any solution in the range covered by my draft and your
and John's messages.

   Brian

On 2009-01-10 12:52, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant
> problem.  Document transfer outside the IETF is sufficiently rare that I
> would agree with Fred that not solving that is fine.
> 
> This also means that from my personal perspective, a solution that says
> (loosely based on a suggestion from someone else in a side conversation)
> that
> 1) If you can, you grant 5378 rights
> 2) If you can't, you grant the old rights, as long as there is no code
> in the document
> 3) If there is code, get the rights to the code so people can actually
> use the code in the RFC to implement the RFC.  (MIBs are already
> covered, but we have lots of other kinds of code.)
> 
> would seem a workable path.
> Yes, point 3 may hold up some work.  But one could reasonably argue that
> such work needs to be held up so that folks can use the code we are
> giving them.
> 
> And I fully agree that we should leave all legal wordsmithing to the
> trust and the lawyers.  They have to do it anyway.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the
>>> viable options. My draft implicitly adds
>>>
>>>   (2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378
>>>   materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are
>>>   posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions.
>>>
>>> To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to
>>> require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2).
>>
>> I am all in favor of authors trying for 2.5 if they have the
>> time and inclination although, mostly, I'd rather have them
>> spend time on technical work (Marshall's suggestion last month
>> that the Trust itself should take responsibility for rounding up
>> old rights has some appeal here).   What I'm opposed to is
>> requiring authors of documents that might have had a very long
>> history to take responsibility for claiming that they have
>> identified all of the original contributors.   My problem with
>> 2.5, stated somewhat more aggressively than is probably
>> desirable, is that it requires the submitter of a 2.5 document
>> to stand up and say "I have identified all of those who might
>> claim to have rights in this document, will take responsibility
>> for getting that identification right, and obtained their
>> consent". 
>> There is a possible 2.5bis, which would be something like "I've
>> made a good-faith, reasonable-effort, attempt to identify
>> everyone
>> and have the agreements from everyone whom that process
>> identified, but I make absolutely no warranty that I've
>> identified everyone or that other claims won't come up; if they
>> do, it is the user's problem, not mine."
>>
>> Whether that is enough different in practice from my (2) to be
>> worth the complexity... I don't know.
>>
>>     john
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf