At 2:41 PM +0100 6/18/07, Dave Cridland wrote: >On Mon Jun 18 13:22:45 2007, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>I don't see a clear license that "explicitly" grants third parties those >>rights. I see some hand waving referring to past behaviour and a link >>to a FAQ without authorship or contact information. <snip> >The IETF Trust certainly appears to have the legal ability to grant rights of this form - that's what BCP78, as updated, is doing. Put another way, I have no reason to think that they don't have the ability to grant such rights, anyway. > >The statements themselves explicitly state that such rights are (and have been) granted. > >Given these, I see no reason to question the legitimacy of the grant of rights, in the absence of any statement to the contrary. > I agree with Dave's interpretation here, and I believe his is both the common view and the common-sense view. Simon, if you continue to disagree with this view, can I ask you resolve it by addressing a message to the IETF Trust for clarification? As Dave notes, trying to resolve it by inserting new language into each document as it passes is not exactly an optimal solution, especially where there are significant ABNF productions which are derived from grandfathered documents. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf