Hi - (I trimmed the CC list, assuming that the WG chairs and Trustees that care about this stuff are already listening to the IETF discussion.)
> From: "Ray Pelletier" <[email protected]> > To: "Sam Hartman" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[email protected]>; "Randy Presuhn" > <[email protected]>; "Working Group Chairs" <[email protected]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email protected]>; "Trustees" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:26 PM > Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms > > > On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > Why do we need to send these license forms in at all? > > > > I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary > > rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us? > > I would envision folks providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their > pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted > online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing > work has been so licensed. ... >From this list of names and the content of a pre-5378 RFC, how can a contributor ascertain that that pre-existing work has been licensed in its entirety? Suppose, for example, it contained an extended passage which was submitted to the working group either on a mailing list or hammered out in a face-to-face session, but is not identified as such. Particularly in the latter case (but also in the case of incomplete WG archives) there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way for a contributor to make this determination with much confidence. Just as a simple "for example": what is the set of names that needs to be posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're required to put in our documents? As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names required to cover all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a MIB module? Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
