Joel, Yes. I'll accept any solution in the range covered by my draft and your and John's messages. Brian On 2009-01-10 12:52, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant > problem. Document transfer outside the IETF is sufficiently rare that I > would agree with Fred that not solving that is fine. > > This also means that from my personal perspective, a solution that says > (loosely based on a suggestion from someone else in a side conversation) > that > 1) If you can, you grant 5378 rights > 2) If you can't, you grant the old rights, as long as there is no code > in the document > 3) If there is code, get the rights to the code so people can actually > use the code in the RFC to implement the RFC. (MIBs are already > covered, but we have lots of other kinds of code.) > > would seem a workable path. > Yes, point 3 may hold up some work. But one could reasonably argue that > such work needs to be held up so that folks can use the code we are > giving them. > > And I fully agree that we should leave all legal wordsmithing to the > trust and the lawyers. They have to do it anyway. > > Yours, > Joel > > John C Klensin wrote: >> >> --On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the >>> viable options. My draft implicitly adds >>> >>> (2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378 >>> materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are >>> posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions. >>> >>> To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to >>> require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2). >> >> I am all in favor of authors trying for 2.5 if they have the >> time and inclination although, mostly, I'd rather have them >> spend time on technical work (Marshall's suggestion last month >> that the Trust itself should take responsibility for rounding up >> old rights has some appeal here). What I'm opposed to is >> requiring authors of documents that might have had a very long >> history to take responsibility for claiming that they have >> identified all of the original contributors. My problem with >> 2.5, stated somewhat more aggressively than is probably >> desirable, is that it requires the submitter of a 2.5 document >> to stand up and say "I have identified all of those who might >> claim to have rights in this document, will take responsibility >> for getting that identification right, and obtained their >> consent". >> There is a possible 2.5bis, which would be something like "I've >> made a good-faith, reasonable-effort, attempt to identify >> everyone >> and have the agreements from everyone whom that process >> identified, but I make absolutely no warranty that I've >> identified everyone or that other claims won't come up; if they >> do, it is the user's problem, not mine." >> >> Whether that is enough different in practice from my (2) to be >> worth the complexity... I don't know. >> >> john >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf