Re: no no derivatives, was legal consultation (was List moderator action)

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

Sorry, I meant:

Are there any other exemplars between RFC 5378 and RFC 7016?

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 08-May-26 12:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 08-May-26 06:38, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> said:
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>>
>>>    *
>>> Therefore, IMHO it would be perfectly reasonable to disallow "no
>>>    *
>>> derivative rights" for all IETF stream contributions.
>>>
>>> That�s a really bad idea.  For example, I could post a draft with no-derivative as a trial balloon to see if the IETF is interested, say as a DISPATCH presentation. If not,
>>> then I am free to take it to other places or to seek a patent.
>>
>> Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you. These days, it would take about
>> 10 seconds to stick a draft or draft-like thing on a server somewhere else and
>> send a note to an IETF list saying take a look at my document at https://blah
>> and tell us if you're interested.
>>
>> Considering the length of this thread, I think the simplification would be worth it.
>> I realize there is a process nit about how you might ask to DISPATCH somehthing if
>> there isn't an I-D but I think we can deal with it.
>>
>> By my count there have been 21 RFCs published with "no derivatives" lanaguage,
>> the most recent RFC8216 in 2017. The last in the IETF stream was RFC7016 in
>> 2013, over a decade ago.
> 
> And it could not be published in the IETF stream today, per RFC 8789.
> 
> Are there any other exemplars between RFC 5378 and RFC 8216?
> 
>       Brian