Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money

Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> Thu, 27 July 1995 00:19 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19293; 26 Jul 95 20:19 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19285; 26 Jul 95 20:19 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28183; 26 Jul 95 20:19 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19271; 26 Jul 95 20:19 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19230; 26 Jul 95 20:15 EDT
Received: from [192.203.17.70] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28132; 26 Jul 95 20:15 EDT
Received: by cavebear.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02886; Wed, 26 Jul 95 17:16:03 PDT
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 17:16:03 -0700
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Cc: isoc trustees <isoc-trustees@linus.isoc.org>, ISOC Advisory Council <ISOC-Advisory-Council@linus.isoc.org>, ietf <ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, poised@tis.com
Subject: Re: R. e: ITU document server now costs money
In-Reply-To: <9507262208.AA18383@snark.imsi.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950726170924.2870A-100000@pax.cavebear.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

> > It's my personal feeling that it will not be possible to put all
> > documents "into the public domain" without causing a lot of
> > organizations to have second thoughts about paying for employees to
> > participate in the IETF process.
> 
> We've been doing that thus far from what I can tell -- anyone claiming
> copyright on the documents would have serious problems doing so -- so
> why would this be a new problem?

Nobody outside ISOC/IETF appears to be trying to claim copyright
ownership of RFCs.

Rather, it's the the copyright on submitted documents/e-mail, as well as
patents (whether visible or hidden,pending) on underlying technology, that's
becomming a problem.  I've already had direct experience with a company that
wanted to submit some pretty interesting technology, with full intention of
making it freely available, if it ended up in a standard.  But that company
didn't want to end up in a situation in which the technogy end up in the
public domain should it not be used in a standard.  (Lest this be misread,
that company was apparently working in good faith and not trying to coerce
adoption of its technology.  Rather it simply wanted to have a safe fallback
position should the working group not adopt it.)

		--karl--