Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, 15 May, 2007 00:12 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> 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."

I think I understood all of that, even though the clarification
/ confirmation was useful.   I was trying to make two other
points:

(i) Using the acknowledgements that way is not a particularly
novel proposal or one that the IPR WG would have to impose as an
innovation on the publication process: the rules today certainly
permit doing what you are suggesting.

(ii) This proposal is somewhat more of the nature of encouraging
an author to supply specific types of information -- information
that might be required under the existing acknowledgement rules
even though those rules are a bit fuzzy-- and where to put it,
rather than a new requirement.

All things being equal, less radical changes make me more happy
and this is definitely not a radical change.

     john


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