IETF Logo Mail Archive

Coupling RFC copying conditions with the existence of the IETF (was: Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt)

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> Mon, 21 February 2005 09:33 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03596 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:33:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3AIk-00038O-20 for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:56:26 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D39Nk-0003S4-G3; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:57:32 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D38pP-00051d-AW for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:22:03 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28451 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:21:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net ([217.13.230.178] helo=yxa.extundo.com ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D39BV-0001M9-Ic for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:44:54 -0500
Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.2/8.13.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j1L8LaPe021092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:21:40 +0100
From: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
To: sob@harvard.edu
References: <iluy8dir7p5.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <20050221021306.897F122ADB7@newdev.harvard.edu>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050221:sob@harvard.edu::QsSIjLg2oiSBZArS:R3h
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050221:neroden@twcny.rr.com::1e+MobX9cZgwZdXE:6Gqp
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050221:ipr-wg@ietf.org::Gg+gi5qlNSAUyT+t:AYyh
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:21:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20050221021306.897F122ADB7@newdev.harvard.edu> (Scott Bradner's message of "Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:13:06 -0500 (EST)")
Message-ID: <iluoeeeqq5z.fsf_-_@latte.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=failed version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yxa-iv
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.81, clamav-milter version 0.81b on yxa.extundo.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, neroden@twcny.rr.com
Subject: Coupling RFC copying conditions with the existence of the IETF (was: Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca

sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) writes:

> sorry - I did see that message but it just looked like you disagree with
> what I wrote
>
> my worries are set down in the ID - you dismiss them out of hand - whats
> to talk about?

That was not my intention.  I believe there were several concrete
questions and problems raised in my message, and not merely opinions.

I will try to reword it, but I wanted to handle the following
separately.

> (by the way
> "there is nothing that guarantee that the IETF will be around forever"
> is a very silly argument - if the ietf were to go away who would complain
> if there were a 1000 things that claimed to be SIP? - whoever it was
> it would not be the ietf so anything by the IETF that said 'don't do
> that' would be far from effective)

I do not think it is a silly argument.  It is not about who will
complain after IETF goes away.  It is about granting the proper rights
to people here and now.

License should be written so there aren't obvious escape holes that
can be used to get around the intention of the license.

Moving the technical work from the legal IETF entity to another legal
entity would be simple, and would nullify anything the IETF agreed to.

The IETFng would have the authority to speak on technical terms re the
older standards, because the technical competence would be in IETFng.
It is the IETF members who make up the trust in IETF, not the IETF's
name itself.

If you believe the problem is silly, why don't consider humoring me
and make sure the license on RFCs aren't tightly coupled to the
existence of some legal entity?  Doing so would make a difference,
e.g., Debian may be in a position to distribute to users my manuals
and software, which are derived from RFCs.

If you have another argument, other than "sillyness", I'd like to hear
it.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email