Sorry for this Blackberry response. Neither 'wish' nor 'elects' is accaeptable to me because it seems to place a duty on the Contributor to ascertain the desires of the pre-5378 contributor, a tasking on the contributor that I wish to avoid with the language proposed.
Ray Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:46 To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less value-laden than "wish"? ----- Original Message ----- From: John C Klensin <[email protected]> To: Contreras, Jorge; Thomas Narten <[email protected]>; Ray Pelletier <[email protected]> Cc: Trustees <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sun Feb 08 17:38:10 2009 Subject: RE: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem --On Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:24 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would recommend > leaving 6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was > circulated. > > 6.c.iii > >> OLD: >> >> > iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the >> > Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such >> > Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the IETF Standards >> > Process: >> >> "does not wish" is not right. The issue is that the current >> author of the document is unable (for whatever reason) to >> make assertions about the pre-5378 material. > > I think "does not wish" is right, as it gives the new > Contributor maximum flexibility in withholding the right to > make non-IETF derivative works if his Contribution includes > pre-5378 Material. I don't see any of the proposed changes > making this clearer or better. >... Jorge, I think people are trying to make two specific points. If you tell us that both are irrelevant, then I, for one, will accept that and move on. The points are: (1) This language should not let a submitting author (a term that is a tad more precise than "Contributor" for this purpose, but substitute as you like) off the hook for compliance with the letter and intent of 5378 for his or her one new, post whenever-November-10-is, contribution. If the Note Well, or 5378 itself, or something else, takes care of that regardless of what the workaround text says, it would be helpful to clarify that somewhere. (2) As a submitting author, I may be so convinced that 5378 is a wonderful thing that I would dearly wish, with all of my might, that I could offer a document in full compliance with its text and intent. But I may just not have enough rights to do that (something wishing is unlikely to cure) and hence have to opt for IETF use only. Some of us would like to avoid an assertion that we "wish" to not provide the broader rights as it may be counterfactual. That distinction may make absolutely no difference from an IPR standpoint, but some of us have an allergy to IETF procedural rules that require people to assert things that aren't true. john
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
