Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

John C Klensin wrote:

> Of course, our existing rules about acknowledgments encourage,
> if not require, such statements anyway.

Yes, I've used the acknowledgements here as vehicle to make the
permission obvious in an unobtrusive way.

The case I had in mind was the RFC with the SHA code, where it
wasn't obvious for me if that was meant to be "feel free to use
it, we've asked NIST", or if it was meant to be "that's how you
could do it, if you prepare for the required conformance tests
in country A, and you can't do it at all in country B if it's
for a product sold in country A".

> One can even argue that, if Y is not actively participating
> in the IETF, explicit permission is required in many cases:
> without it, a strict reading of our rules prevents X from
> posting the document in the first place, even as an I-D.

Yes, my example was a proposal how to make the existence of an
explicit permission obvious for readers.  Including Y when he
gets a copy of the I-D, giving him the chance to say "wait a
moment, contribution, BCP 78bis, what is this stuff ?  I want
to sell software and thought an I-D is a free marketing venue."

Frank



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