Re: item for discussion - IAOC Q&A

[Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> This particular situation represents the only the "best case" for early 
  *> documents: the authors are available, willing, and they developed the 
  *> documents without the added complications of multiple authors or employer 
  *> interest in the IPR. We're not expecting a landslide transfer of earlier 
  *> RFCs as a result, but we're hoping to set a model and open the dialog with 
  *> other authors.

Lucy,

There should be no problem getting pre-1998 authors to sign such a
document, since it merely memorializes in modern legalese the implicit
agreement between authors and the RFC Editor since the beginning of
time.  In the less legally-toxic atmosphere of the time, authors were
simply assumed to agree with the announced IPR policy (called something
like "Copyright Story", authored by Jon Postel, and available on the
RFC Editor web site for as long as I can remember.  As an early RFC
author, I certainly ASSUMED the contents of your license statement,
and I assume that other authors did as well.

But today the world has an excess of lawyers and we need to keep
them fully employed.

Bob Braden

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf