Full disclosure, I had also recently asked to have some drafts removed and I sent my request to the IESG. I have not heard back yet. I realize now that are some differences between my drafts and Khaled's. But....
I did just find
17 U.S. Code § 204.Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how this plays into things.
Tim
On 10/20/2020 5:09 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi John,I was unable to find the Legend instruction breadcrumbs.
Tim
On 10/20/2020 4:58 PM John Scudder <jgs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That was in BCP 78. And section 4 makes that argument moot for Khaled, don't you agree?
I’m not even an armchair lawyer, but when I look at Section 4, it says "must be marked appropriately as described in the Legend Instructions.” If one follows the trail of breadcrumbs to see exactly what that means, one finds that a different legend is required for "all Alternate Stream Documents (including RFCs and Internet-Drafts)”. It wasn’t used in this instance; rather, the standard IETF stream legend was used.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
—John
