> On 5 Jun 2026, at 10:40, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 05-Jun-26 10:26, Jay Daley wrote: >>> On 5 Jun 2026, at 08:59, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2026, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> As I already said, I don't think we should drag the RSWG/RSAB into >>>> copyright >>>> issues. We have the IETF Trust/IPMC LLC to deal with that (and impose a >>>> disclosure requirement as part of their Legal Provisions if they decide >>>> it's >>>> legally necessary). >>> >>> Agreed, and it isn't. >>> >>>> For me the issue is an ethical one. It feels wrong not to disclose if >>>> an AI wrote my homework. I think we need to put that point to the >>>> community. >>>> If the community doesn't want such a rule, fine, but IMHO it needs to be a >>>> wider community than the RSWG that reaches that conclusion.. >>> >>> We have always allowed people to use material they didn't write in >>> contributions and we have never required people to say where the material >>> came from. What's different now? If people have to disclose LLM material, >>> do they have to disclose other PD material they use? There has always been >>> a possibility that people will assume that an author wrote some chunk of a >>> document that he used from somwhere else. >> I don’t think the "who wrote it" is the right lens for this. I suspect that >> the big issue here is the likely huge increase in uncopyrightable text in >> our documents. Sure we already have public domain/uncopyrighted text, but >> from my limited viewpoint it seems minor and rare, whereas we can foresee a >> future where it is major and commonplace. When that happens, I don’t think >> our rules/processes will be adequate and an evolution will be needed to >> address that. To give you a concrete example, we prevent non-IETF >> derivatives of IETF standards for good reasons, but if/when a standard has >> significant AI output incorporated into it, even if that’s light editing, >> will we be able to continue with that level of protection? >> With that in mind, the key disclosure required is not if an AI wrote it, but >> about the copyrightable nature of the submissions. > > But that's really Trust/IPMC scope, surely?
Implementing the policy the IETF decides is their role yes, but there is a policy gap here because of the strategic consequences of this evolution, and policy is for the community to decide. > And in the end, our only defence is going to be the RFC "brand". The law > won't help. I think it’s too early to tell where/how this will develop. Jay > > Brian -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
