![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dear Cullen; On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to send to the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed changes to the document published on the web sight? or just a new copy of the document?
SeeDraft Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents after Community Last Call (2009-02-09)
in http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.htmlBoth redlined and a clean copy are provided, in both pdf and MS word for each.
Regards Marshall
On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf at ietf.org Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 ProblemNEW PROPOSED c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If aContributordesires to limit the right to make modificationsand derivatives/desires/needs/I don't think that "desires" is appropriate here - as John pointed out, the contributor has no discretion here, except for their judgement as to whether rights are available.Actually, in this case, it is the submitters choice, since we are talking about case (i) or (ii) (and not (iii) which has been the challenging case). And "desires" is the wording that has been used here for a while. But that said, a more neutral term is fine by me, since the motivations for needing to select this may vary. How about "chooses"? Thomas"chooses" is fine with me _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf_______________________________________________ Trustees mailing list Trustees at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.