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

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Bill Manning" <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
> > To: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> > Cc: "'IETF Discussion'" <ietf@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378
> Problem
> ...
> > er... thats -NOT- what I was trying to point out.  The IETF
> > was given permission to publish an authors work but was not
> > allowed to impune joint authorship. The IETF did not create the
> > work - it provided a publication vehicle.
> ...
> 
> That certainly was *not* my understanding when I offered my services
> as an editor for the various IDs and RFCs where I've functioned in
> that role.  I, and I'm sure many others in those working groups,
> thought those documents were products of the working group,
> which did that work for the IETF.  For me to claim authorship of,
> e.g., RFC 3417, would be intellectually dishonest.  For the IETF
> to claim that I was its author, rather than merely an editor acting
> on the instruction of a working group, is downright delusional.
> 
> Randy
> 

	there are a broad range of possible interpertations on
	ones activities in such a loose confederation of like-minded
	individuals (since the IETF has no membership per se).

	i was pointing out that for some period of time, (and i suspect
	this is still true for non-WG generated materials) where the
	work product was developed independently of any given WG effort.
	the NFS spec comes to mind.

	for a few months/years, this was recognized by the RFC editor
	and the IAB/IESG - which created three specific copyright statements
	that reflected the various origins of the submitted materials.

	one of those "boilerplate" texts allowed for the listed authors
	to own the copyright to the text and gave specific permission to
	the IETF to publish the work "as-is".

	that said, i can not disagree with you on your understandings.

	so ... prior to the dis-engagement of CNRI and the rise of the
	IETF TRUST, just how would one define "the IETF" anyway?

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf