On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it personally > or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right in > any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your peace. > Otherwise, I think it best that the IETF Trust exercise its rights under its > joint copyright to do whatever is deemed appropriate and in the public > interest, as determined by the IETF Trustees and its legal counsel, and not > ask permission. > > /Larry > are you talking about -all- IETF related documents (IDs, postings, april 1st RFCs, etc...) or RFCs that are standards? (discounting BCPs, Informational RFCs, etc) for a period of time, text like this appeared in at least a dozen documents: "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works is not granted." there were even a few documents that had explicit copyright statements that excluded ISOC & IETF from doing anything with the document, other than the right to publish for the period of performance for an ID, e.g. no longer than six months. one reaction to that was the promulgation of the "Note Well" legal advice and the path that lead us to this point. So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a private ownership right in the materials they generated. I think that the IETF Trust should be very careful in using/reusing that material, esp w/o asking permission. There, I've spoken up ... reserving my right to speak now and later on this topic. (not going to "forever hold my peace"). --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf