Hi Chris, I have become confused between the permission necessary to republish the Tao, and the request to republish under a Creative Commons license. Can I try to clarify. Do we or do we not grant permission for others to publish the Tao and the translations of the Tao under section 3c of the TLP at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf ? Thanks and sorry for dragging this on. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris > Griffiths > Sent: 09 October 2013 15:44 > To: SM > Cc: Trustees Trustees; John C Klensin; Nevil Brownlee; ietf@xxxxxxxx list > Subject: Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Chris Griffiths <cgriffiths@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sep 24, 2013, at 6:11 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> At 23:48 02-08-2013, Chris Griffiths wrote: > >>> Issue 1 > >>> > >>> We have recently been asked permission to republish the TAO with a > creative commons license, but according to counsel, the current trust agreement > does not give the trustees the rights to do this. > >>> > >>> - Without specific language being added to the trust agreement, we cannot > grant these types of requests. > >>> - The current open request for a creative commons license from 6/18/2013 > cannot be completed. > >> > >> In term of "outgoing" rights the Independent Submission Stream is different > from the IETF Stream. The draft version of the Tao might offer a path forward. > Would it be possible to have it submitted through the Independent Submission > Stream and use that version and changes to address the above request? > >> I haven't looked into the process stuff. It might be possible [1] to sort that out > once the legal hurdles are settled. > > SM, > > I wanted to follow-up with this specific request and advise that based on > discussions with legal council and feedback from the Trustees that the current > rules don't allow granting permission to republish this using the Independent > Submission Stream, nor to grant a Community Commons license. At this time we > also do not have community consensus to prioritize a change to the rules in order > to meet this request. > > Thank you > > Chris Griffiths