a. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing lists, functions and other activities which are organized or initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but solely to the extent of such participation.
So this means that Simon Josefsson is allowed to exercise the rights Scott quoted and incorporate the executable pieces into running code, but the guy on the next desk, who isn't on any IETF mailing list, is not, even though they work on the same project, for the same employer, under the same laws. If he joins an IETF list (any IETF list), he's allowed to.
I wish we could read this this way. But I am embarassed by the "but _solely_ to the _extent_ of such _participation_". May not that mean that the third party must be on one of the IETF mailing list of the area of the matter he wants to quote, or that it must interact reasonably about it? Is a lurker having the same rights as a de facto co-author acting in a WG? Also, drafts are presented by WGs. Are the true authors the quoted authors or are the WG retaining parts of the rights? When a new concept is suggested by a WG member and aggregated to someone's draft who is to give the authorization to quote it? This would also mean that subscribing to an open mailing list would modify legal rights, this registration should then be notarized in a way. Since many mail names can be used, there should be a IANA IETF Members list (there is a IANA Corporate list). When is a subscription ended - when I remove myself from the list or when I cease reading my mails?
In most of the cases there will not be any issue. But if someone starts objecting and suing someone else it will mean the case is worth it and lawyers will certainly discuss these points and many others. This would then have a brutal impact on the whole Internet standard process because unprepared.
For example, there is no IETF definition I am aware of for the term "domain name". There are many quotes of it in documents, contracts, legislations. Is someone claiming paternity of it, so I can ask him/her the permission to quote his description? I chose the term "domain name" on purpose because most of its use today in the world is now in relation to DNS. And many processes are carried which use the term in a different meaning than the RFCs. Would not the IETF's attitude about this key and core term make jurisprudence in case someone object for a less important term?
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf