RE: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w licensing guidance

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Wednesday, 18 July, 2007 14:04 -0400 Black_David at emc.com
wrote:

>> Have I misunderstood your intent here?
> 
> I think we're in violent agreement.  Copyright notices need to
> be preserved, and someone (need not be the IETF Trust) ought
> to be encouraging mention of the code authors in the
> Acknowledgements section of published RFCs.  I understand that
> RFCs are archival documents that can't be changed once
> published.

With the understanding that I'm in violent agreement too, the
place to try to ensure/ force this is with the introductory
boilerplate and "incoming", and the standard pre-publication
review to be sure those terms have been satisfied, not in trying
to either demand that the Trust do things it can't do or to
insert the Trustees in the pre-publication review process of
individual documents.

For example, we might want to consider modifying the assertions
that someone makes in requesting that an I-D be published to
include not only that everyone who should be acknowledged is
acknowledged but also that any required copyright or license
notices, especially for anything that might be construed as
"code", are preserved as needed.

But, again, it seems to me that those are requirements on
submissions, not requirements that the IETF Trust needs to write
rules about or try to enforce or validate on a case-by-case
basis.

   john



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