On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:14:30AM -0600, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> (3) I would strongly discourage spinning up a General-Area working group
> without adopting the workaround - as an editor, even if I thought all
> contributors had granted 5378-as-it-exists-today rights, I'm not sure why
> I would make such a declaration. What if I was wrong?
I know what *I* would do, if I were editing a I-D document in this
post-5378 regime. I'd put the darned thing under source control, and
in each changelog message I would include a reference to the message
ID and author names for each textual contribution that I didn't
personally author. That would hopefully control the legal liability I
would suffer if someone tried to sue me claiming that I had somehow
included text which violated copyright in some way, since I would be
able to demonstrate provenance at least to who actual contributed the
text to the wg mailing list. I still might end up having to sell my
house to defend the lawsuit, but at least I would hopefully not lose
my house as a result of making the promises required by RFC 5378 ---
at least I would hopefully be able to take down whoever had
misappropriated the text with me. :-)
> In short - please do something quickly, because the current situation is
> making things harder for people who want to get work done in the IETF,
> and that should trump every other consideration, IMO.
Indeed; I was only partially serious when I suggested that the IETF
trust should indemnify or otherwise provide insurance to I-D authors.
RFC-5378 is requiring them to take on potentially fearsome liability
risks, even if we're not dealing with legacy RFC's from the pre-5378
era.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf