Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-02.txt

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> writes:

> Thank you for a number of very useful checks on wording.
> A number of the issues you included in your comments are requests for
> change in the rough consensus as called by the chairs.    Unlike the
> editorial matters, I can not choose to make those changes.

You should read those parts as starting points for discussion.  Some
of the issues have, I believe, not been sufficiently discussed with
input from a diverse set of participants to make it possible to gauge
consensus.  My hope is that there will be input from several people on
each issue.

> One item occurs a couple of times, and seems to me to be a bit confusing:
>
> At 04:12 AM 1/24/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>That's true, but not the entire story.  It is possible for the inbound
>>rights to give rights to third parties directly.  Thus, it is possible
>>for the IETF to grant third parties rights that the IETF doesn't own
>>itself.
>
> While we could write the inbound rights document that way, I was under
> the impression that the agreement was that inbound would deal with
> contributors granting rights to the IETF, and outbound would deal with
> the IETF granting rights to others.  As such, I don't need to address
> a hypothetical more complex interaction between the two documents.
> I would expect that the required boilerplate would be based on both documents.

Sure.  It is the agreement on that you refer to which I'm questioning.
When was this discussed and consensus on the approach declared?  This
approach is against the spirit of RFC 3978.  As far as I understand
Jorge, he claims that third parties are granted rights to code
directly from the contributor by RFC 3978.  I don't see the problems
that justify changing that fundamental aspect.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg