Ok, I think (hope) I understand the intention now. How about the following as a friendly clarifying amendment to the proposed text: Proposed Yesterday: c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor desires to limit its publication, or the Contribution includes pre-5378 Material that may limit the right to make modifications and derivative works of an IETF Contribution, one of the following notices must be included. The notices set forth in clauses (i) and (ii) below may not be used with any standards-track document, nor with most working group documents. The "Proposed Yesterday" text blurs the distinction between c.i/ii and c.iii. I think that this could be done more clearly, as suggested in NEW PROPOSED below. In the first sentence of c, the old concept of clauses i and ii is preserved. The new concept in iii is treated in the next sentence. NEW PROPOSED c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative works of, or to publish, an IETF Contribution that is not a standards-track document or, in most cases, a working group document, then one of the notices in clause (i) or (ii) below must be included. If an IETF Contribution contains pre-5378 Material as to which the IETF Trust has not been granted, or may not have been granted, the necessary permissions to allow modification of such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF Standards Process, then the notice in clause (iii) may be included by the Contributor of such IETF Contribution to limit the right to make modifications to such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF Standards Process. NEW PROPOSED c.iii. introduction (Notice stays the same) For consistency and clarity the introduction to c.iii is made to conform with 6.c as follows iii. If an IETF Contribution contains pre-5378 Material as to which the IETF Trust has not been granted, or may not have been granted, the necessary permissions to allow modification of such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF Standards Process: > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 7:04 PM > To: Contreras, Jorge > Cc: Trustees; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed > work-around to thePre-5378 Problem > > At 14:24 08-02-2009, Contreras, Jorge wrote: > >Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would > recommend leaving > >6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was circulated. > > [snip] > > >I think "does not wish" is right, as it gives the new Contributor > >maximum flexibility in withholding the right to make > non-IETF derivative > >works if his Contribution includes pre-5378 Material. I > don't see any > >of the proposed changes making this clearer or better. > > I'm writing this in plain English. The trustees can convert > it to legalese. > > The new Contributor is using text from pre-5378 Material in a > document after RFC 5378 was published. The text was only available > for reuse within the IETF Standards Process as the Contributor has > not been given rights according to RFC 5378 from the author of that > text for reasons stated previously. > > The new Contributor would like to say that the document contains > Pre-5378 Material and he/she can only give rights for modifications > within the IETF Standards Process. The new Contributor is unable to > give any rights for non-IETF derivative works as that falls outside > the Internet Standards Process. > > This is not about the new Contributor "does not wish" or "elects" to > withhold the rights as he/she does not have a choice in the matter. > > Regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf