On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:39 AM -0700 1/24/09, Doug Ewell wrote:
John Levine <johnl at iecc dot com> wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here.
We're worrying about situations in which someone contributes
material to the IETF that ended up in an RFC, then later goes to
court and claims to be shocked and injured that someone else used
his material in ways that RFCs are routinely used, i.e., someone
acts like a complete jerk.
It could happen. Remember that some people who participate in a
WG, and contribute one or two bits of information that make their
way into the RFC, are unhappy overall with that group's rough
consensus. Not all "contributions" are positive or direct; an
author might add wording specifically to ward off a rogue
interpretation that someone in the WG "contributed." If you think
this is improbable, read some of the appeals that the IESG has had
to address in the past 3 years or so.
You are missing John's point, which you elided below the quote
above. If someone is a jerk and irrationally aggrieved, nothing we
say in a boilerplate will prevent them from suing the IETF and
incurring great costs in time and money. A very very careful
boilerplate *might* cause them to be less likely to win damages, but
balancing that against the time and effort we put into the
boilerplate is literally impossible to do.
The real risk is where some other SDO can hold IETF liable for damages
induced by the irrational aggrievement of someone who contributed to
the IETF. While we can't do much about the irrational contributor, we
can at least avoid making express commitments to indemnify third
parties who use our pre-5378-note-well specifications. This puts the
conflict between the irrationally aggrieved party and the third party,
leaving the IETF out of the shooting, which is a Good Thing.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf