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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:28 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Also, it should be understood that this issue is largely
> orthogonal to the topic under discussion.  The working group
> could have included what Simon asked for in 5377.  The rough
> consensus of the WG was not to do so.  A more narrow 5378
> would make it harder to make such a grant, but since the
> working group didn't choose to do so (and personally, I think
> doing so would undermine much of our work) the issues seems to
> have no bearing on "whould we rescind 5378?" or "is there a
> better transition strategy to get 5378 to apply to the bulk of
> our work?" or "how do we get 5378 rights in code, without
> holding up all the other documents?"

One addition to Joel's remarks.  Even if, as part of the medium
to long-term solution to the 5378 problem, we were to return to
the basic model of 2026, i.e., any rights for non-IETF use have
to be worked out directly with authors, 5377 would need only a
conceptually fairly minor amendment requiring that authors grant
those rights at the time of document submission, rather than
recommending that the Trust doing so on a licensing basis.   I
don't see any reason to believe that pulling out that core
change in 5378 is necessary to solve the problem of what to do
about old documents/ Contributions, but, even if we did...

So, please, let's focus on that old document transition problem
and what is necessary to make it go away efficiently, safely,
and with great confidence, rather than trying to move from "5378
has a problem" to "this is an excuse to rehash every decision
taken by the WG".

Just my opinion, but...
     john


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