Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

[Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>]

So what I hear (and for the benefit of others, let me note that you  
and I have ha a fairly detailed discussion privately that I think I am  
summarizing the result of) is that you want a short term solution and  
a long term solution. The short term solution would be adequately  
solved by using the 3978 options for most documents, and for documents  
with code, the 5378 option or a letter-or-whatever sent in parallel  
that was equivalent. In the long term, you would be fine with a rule  
that supported all existing 3978 options plus some number (one?) that  
said "this contains code, and...". Am I correct?

If so, the present dilemma can be resolved by
 - the IESG rescinding its acceptance of 5378, reinstating 3978
   as the rule of the day
 - the IESG directing the Trust to accept legal communications
   (letters, PGP-signed emails, whatever) that convey the sense of
   the 5378 license for code-bearing documents as a
   temporary workaround
 - in the long term, the development of a 5378-bis that
      * accepts 3978 options as is for non-code documents and <the
        right option> for documents containing code,
      * treats movement of documents to other SDOs as a special
        case to be handled by the parties to the transaction
        including the trust and relevant authors etc.

Close?

On Jan 9, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant  
> problem.  Document transfer outside the IETF is sufficiently rare  
> that I would agree with Fred that not solving that is fine.
>
> This also means that from my personal perspective, a solution that  
> says (loosely based on a suggestion from someone else in a side  
> conversation) that
> 1) If you can, you grant 5378 rights
> 2) If you can't, you grant the old rights, as long as there is no  
> code in the document
> 3) If there is code, get the rights to the code so people can  
> actually use the code in the RFC to implement the RFC.  (MIBs are  
> already covered, but we have lots of other kinds of code.)
>
> would seem a workable path.
> Yes, point 3 may hold up some work.  But one could reasonably argue  
> that such work needs to be held up so that folks can use the code we  
> are giving them.
>
> And I fully agree that we should leave all legal wordsmithing to the  
> trust and the lawyers.  They have to do it anyway.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> John C Klensin wrote:
> > --On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> > <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the
> > > viable options. My draft implicitly adds
> > >
> > >  (2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378
> > >  materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are
> > >  posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions.
> > >
> > > To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to
> > > require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2).
> > I am all in favor of authors trying for 2.5 if they have the
> > time and inclination although, mostly, I'd rather have them
> > spend time on technical work (Marshall's suggestion last month
> > that the Trust itself should take responsibility for rounding up
> > old rights has some appeal here).   What I'm opposed to is
> > requiring authors of documents that might have had a very long
> > history to take responsibility for claiming that they have
> > identified all of the original contributors.   My problem with
> > 2.5, stated somewhat more aggressively than is probably
> > desirable, is that it requires the submitter of a 2.5 document
> > to stand up and say "I have identified all of those who might
> > claim to have rights in this document, will take responsibility
> > for getting that identification right, and obtained their
> > consent".  There is a possible 2.5bis, which would be something  
> > like "I've
> > made a good-faith, reasonable-effort, attempt to identify
> > everyone
> > and have the agreements from everyone whom that process
> > identified, but I make absolutely no warranty that I've
> > identified everyone or that other claims won't come up; if they
> > do, it is the user's problem, not mine."
> > Whether that is enough different in practice from my (2) to be
> > worth the complexity... I don't know.
> >    john
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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