[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent the Sponsor" as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...
Brian - you know I respect you technically and I will agree (although I
bitch and moan about it) that the IETF should exist. But it has to exist
within the laws and IP MRA's this country has with the rest of the world.
That doesn't mean that OpenSourcing IP is a bad idea but even OS wares can
be purchased (or licensed in this case) so that any derivatives don't need
to be feed back into the pool. That said, commercial IP's can be granted
that status as well, so that means that the IETF can process both types of
standards processes, ones of the everyman and those of the commercial or
academic entity.
That said I want to retort to your response Sir - and please take it with my
usual pessimistic style... but also know I believe these words.
:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
To: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent the Sponsor"
as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...
SNIP
If an individual makes a false representation, that's between
the individual and his/her employer.
Pardon my disagreeing with you but not when the IETF doesn't have a "Take
Down Policy" its not.
(FWIW - A Take Down policy would also need a method of 'rescinding the
release in the original publication;)
I don't mean that the IETF should willfully ignore rights; but
we *presume* that contributors aren't misrepresenting their rights
when they make a contribution.
Brian - The new Digital Evidence rules make this unreliable these days.
If that
hasn't been done, then the IETF doesn't have the right to make
derivative works from it, full stop.
So then let me ask, what possible recourse would someone have against the
IETF when the IETF relicensed stolen property 'for any and all uses'? If you
can explain to me how anything other than serious litigation is possible,
please do!
Sorry...
If a party other than the contributor later asserts that the
contributor misrepresented their rights, that would obviously
end up in the hands of the IETF's counsel.
Amen - but this is the point. There is NO Take Down process and the license
wont support one. Meaning that the ONLY option is to sue the IETF and the
parties involved. Its that simple, and that this was designed this way is a
serious problem in my opinion.
This has happened,
extremely rarely, and been resolved by negotiation. It's unlikely
to be clear-cut, though.
My point exactly and the IETF's licensing and distribution model is to blame
for those damages... this is not a good thing anymore Brian.
Todd
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg