Cullen, in answer to your question, Yes. A penultimate draft of the proposed changes to the Legal Provisions document is available from the IETF Trust website at http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Please look at the version labelled: Draft Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents after Community Last Call (2009-02-09) FYI this draft is currently before the Trustees, for a decision by end of tomorrow. If the Trustees accept this draft, then two final edits will be required to formally adopt this policy document. The edits will be: 1) To finalize and identify the "Effective Date" in the title on page 1, and 2) To insert the effective date into the header information of pages 2-7 of the document. Regards, Ed Juskevicius On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to send to > the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed changes to the > document published on the web sight? or just a new copy of the document? > > > On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote: > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM >>> To: Marshall Eubanks >>> Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed >>> work-around to thePre-5378 Problem >>> >>> NEW PROPOSED >>>>> >>>>> c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a >>>>> >>>> Contributor >>> >>>> desires to limit the right to make modifications >>>>> >>>> and derivative >>> >>> s/desires/needs/ >>>> >>> >>> I don't think that "desires" is appropriate here - as John pointed >>>> out, the contributor has no discretion here, except for their >>>> judgement as to whether rights are available. >>>> >>> >>> Actually, in this case, it is the submitters choice, since we are >>> talking about case (i) or (ii) (and not (iii) which has been the >>> challenging case). And "desires" is the wording that has been used >>> here for a while. >>> >>> But that said, a more neutral term is fine by me, since the >>> motivations for needing to select this may vary. >>> >>> How about "chooses"? >>> >>> Thomas >>> >> >> "chooses" is fine with me >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ > Trustees mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
