On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 03:20:20PM +0100, Tom.Petch wrote:
>
> Underlying this, I believe that if only the IPR WG had not had to
> spend so much time discussing and re-discussing and re-re-discussing
> ... this issue, then may be, just may be, we would have had more
> time to focus on the transition arrangements that we identified the
> need for in RFC5377 s.3. In which case, this thread and all the
> other related ones would never have occurred.
So I wasn't on the IPR working group, but it seems to me that there
are two separable issues. There is the question of *which* license to
use for contributions (which might or might not vary based on type of
contribution, i.e., text vs. code), and then there is the question of
whether we are sticking the entire legal liability and respponsibility
onto the I-D editors/authors to guarantee/warant that the entire
document can be released under the the new licensing requirements, and
that relates quite strongly to the transition issue.
Was that second issue discussed by the IPR wg?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf