--On Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:52 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
<Jorge.Contreras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less
value-laden than "wish"?
Jorge,
Makes no difference at all. Let me try this again, uncluttered
by the distinctions I was trying to make the last time
(distinctions that are relevant, but not to this text)...
* The submitting author has no choice other than compliance with
5378 for any new text he or she generates. That is regardless
of what he or she wishes, would elect if there were a choice, or
fantasizes about late at night.
* The contributor (note lower-case) of text that came into
existence prior to 5378 also had no choice at that time. He or
she could not decide to confirm to 5378 because there was no
5378. Such a Contributor may now elect to come forward and
transfer additional rights to the text (or may wish to do so and
get around to it some day), but neither of those activities has
anything to do with the workaround in question.
* For any document containing text that the submitting author
knows (or even believes) existed prior to 5378, that author has
exactly two choices about the composite document. He can assert
that, of his own personal knowledge, all of the necessary rights
have been obtained so that the document can be published fully
under 5378 and that the Trust can trust (sic) him sufficiently
to issue licenses under 5377 that do not contain significant
disclaimers about rights the IETF Trust may not have to grant.
Or she, being smarter about these things (or at least more
conservative) may choose to post the document with the
workaround text. There is, again, really no wishing or election
about this.
One could, I suppose, say that the submitting author choosing
the workaround "wishes" to avoid making assertions about the
actions of others that she cannot verify and assuming levels of
liability that could be quite significant in practice and hence
will not assert that there is no guarantee that the document can
be used for anything other than IETF purposes. In such a
statement, "elects" would, indeed, be better than "wishes".
But note that it is a different statement than the one in the
draft, at least as I read the latter. Here no assertion is made
at all about what the submitting author would prefer (about
which we don't care) but only about what the submitting author
cannot or will not assert to be true about the rights to the
work of others.
If the submitting author cannot or will not make those
assertions, then the consequence is that the document cannot be
guaranteed to be available for other than IETF purposes. But
that is an inevitable consequence, not the result of a
submitting author choice about licensing or use of the document.
Moreover, submitting authors cannot impose that limitation on
their own new work if it is intended for IETF processing or as
an IETF Contribution, no matter how much they might "wish" to do
so -- their own new work is bound by 5378 (if they don't want to
be bound by 5378, the now-updated Note Well effectively tells
them to drop out of the IETF and certainly to stop making
anything that could be counted as a Contribution). The only
decision they can make in practice is a determination of whether
it is reasonable to believe that the IETF Trust has rights
equivalent to 5378 to _all_ _other_ contributions to the
document (and reasonable to whatever level of confidence they
consider appropriate). If they conclude that it is not
reasonable, then they have to invoke the workaround.
No choice, no wishes, no election, no discretion at all about
anything other than the reasonableness of the "Trust already has
all of the needed 5378 (or 5738-like) rights at the time the
document is submitted" assumption.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf