Thanks Ray, that is reassuring. I don't think this decreases the need for the -outbound document to be as clear as possible about what the IETF needs are, though. /Simon Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> writes: > In their April 3, 2008 meeting, the IETF Trustees discussed the > outbound-IPR document, and found no issues with the advice given in > the document. > > More specifically, the Trustees intend to invite comments > from the community, via the ietf discussion list, prior to issuing any > new licenses. The comment period(s) will begin as soon as proposed text > for licenses have been drafted or selected. > > The Trustees will not make any final decisions on licenses stemming > from the > outbound-IPR document until after taking the communities' feedback > into account. > > For the Trustees, > Ray Pelletier > Trustee > > Ted Hardie wrote: > >>>>I agree with Joel. We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that >>>>cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses >>>>or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at >>>>all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses >>>>or, even better, pointing their lawyers at the potholes others have >>>>hit would be very useful. But this draft is not the place to do it. >>>> >>>> >>>I believe the document is the place to do it. This is the only document >>>were the IETF explains how the Trust should write its outgoing software >>>license for code in RFCs. Useful considerations for that process should >>>go into the document. >>> >>>My proposed text does not suggest specific licenses. That is a >>>misunderstanding. >>> >>> >> >>Simon, >> The list of potentially useful considerations in this arena is both long >>and ever-changing. Imagine, for a moment, that I suggested that the Trust >>survey the legal departments of every organization which had sponsored >>a nomcom-eligible participant in the IETF over the past 3 years asking, if the proposed >>license was usable by their organization. In some lights, this is a pretty reasonable >>suggestion. These are organizations with a demonstrated interest in our >>output, and surveys can be a useful tool even when response rates are low. >>Why not confirm that we are meeting the needs of core participants? >> The answer, basically, is that we want the output to be usable by >>anyone, and privileging the people who pay kind of misses the point. We >>are giving instructions to the Trust to do the best job they can in making >>sure that the output is usable by anyone for any purpose, no matter whether >>they belong to group A, group B, or won't know for many years that they'll >>have an interest at all. >> As for how to get in touch with them, trustees of the trust are the >>IAOC. The IAOC's membership is listed here: >> >>http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html >> >>I am sure they will listen carefully to your concerns and will consider the >>issues you raise. >> regards, >> Ted >>_______________________________________________ >>IETF mailing list >>IETF@xxxxxxxx >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf