Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
>
> I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood
> it. If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence
> of  this one way or the other that would be great. I am pretty sure
> this  was not widely understood when it was IETF LC and I very
> confident it  was not understood by the IESG when when they approved
> it.

I agree.  I don't recall discussions that the intention was that the
documents would require IETF participants to contact earlier IETF
contributors about transferring rights to the Trust.  I believe the
intention was to maintain status quo in this area, i.e., to allow IETF
participants to freely re-use IETF documents within the IETF standards
process.

Given the complexity of the documents, I'm not surprised there are
unforeseen consequences like this.  Unfortunately, the problems I
brought up with the old copyright policy did not lead to discussions of
how to reduce complexity.  Instead, more complexity was added to work
around identified problems.

/Simon
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]