--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 14:32 -0800 Dave CROCKER
<d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> My assumption was not that the work was "available" for "IETF
> use".
>
> My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and
> simple.
>
> The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with
> the work and I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to
> another group. Kill it. Whatever.
>
> Really. That's the cultural basis that I believe formed this
> community and informed participants in it.
> ps. Well, to be more complete, I assumed that IETF ownership
> meant that the document was required to be publicly available
> and -- though I didn't know the term at the time -- there was
> public permission for derivative works by whoever felt like
> doing the deriving.
Dave, this perspective and its implications have been debated by
every incarnation of an IPR WG (or WG including IPR issues) that
I can remember. Many of those debates have been both lengthy
and heated. I'm not going to rehash either the variations on
the position you state or the opposing one(s), but your summary
above is, for better or worse, definitely not what the relevant
documents from 2026 through 3978, versions of the Note Well,
etc., say.
And, if you are just now finding that out, it is more evidence
that there is something seriously wrong with how we develop,
review, and publicize specifications of this type.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
