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.
The WG will produce 3 documents:
- An update to RFC 3978 (BCP) that attempts to specify a complete set
of rights with respect to derivative works granted to the IETF by
authors, as well as technical updates necessitated by the existence
of the Trust
- A document (info) giving advice to the IETF Trust on what rights in
IETF contributions it should attempt to grant to the public in order
to retain change control while allowing open access, resolving the
discrepancy between RFC 2026 and RFC 3978
- A document (info) giving other advice to the IETF Trust on IPR
handling, based on the IPR WG's experience of discussions in the area