Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent theSponsor"as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

<Black_David at emc.com> wrote:

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire>

Ugh, tons of Wikipedia warning templates indicating
"rat hole", "can of worms", and "run if you can" :-(

 [Later you explain]
> If -incoming winds up with language that obtains
> rights only from the individual and not from the
> employer, then when "work for hire" applies, IETF
> gets no rights (which would not be a good thing).

Likely, but...

> I am subject to "work for hire", and I do have my
> employer's permission to submit the Internet-Drafts
> that I author, so IETF does get the copyright
> licenses that it needs

...OTOH "we" (TINW, and I mean the Trust) take your
word for it, implicitly.  I was quite upset when a
person (later ending up as 2nd IETF certified troll)
bothered the employer of a contributor with stupid
questions.  

Ideally "we" should never care about the affiliation
outside of NomCom selections.  Maybe the IPR WG is
the place where "ideal" and "real" meet... :-(  For
crying out loud, I'm only here because I hate EULAs.

 Frank


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