--On Friday, 04 November, 2005 21:17 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
John,
For the record, I am personally opposed to our taking that
step and claiming/ demanding, for the IETF, complete
ownership of anything that is suggested for the standards
track or published as a standards-track RFC (two different
possible rules). But I am even more opposed to incrementally
granting more and more rights to the IETF (actually,
presumably, IAOC and the Trust) to make reuse decisions that
are not directly and obviously related to the IETF's
standards process.
As I understand it, draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update doesn't ask for
that; it asks for the right to pass on the right to make
derivative works. The use case for that is when the IETF wants
to
hand a standard over to another SDO. Today, this requires the
other SDO to go to all the original contrbutors for
permissions.
Are you opposed to that?
As long as the IESG -- and the IESG and not [merely] the IAOC or
the Trustees of some real or imaginary trust -- are willing to
assert, based on their perception of community consensus and in
their role as the managers of that process, that the handover
serves the (standards-development) purposes of the IETF, I am
certainly not opposed to it. I think it is a basic requirement
if we are to collaborate actively with other groups, sometimes
accepting things from them and sometimes handing things over. I
would assume that any handover to another SDO would meet that
"standards-development purposes of the IETF" criterion or we
would not be doing it. Whether that much authority requires the
additional text in the cited I-D is another question and one
which I am not prepared, as a non-lawyer, to try to answer.