Again, I'm not proposing this for copyright/legal reasons - that's
not RSWG business anyway - I'm talking about what RFC readers might expeact
and care about.
I decided to ask an expert, and here's what it said:
https://chatgpt.com/c/6a2379de-8228-83ec-8695-4c63d9fd08dd
(It presumably mentioned the IETF because it has context about me from
previous conversations.)
Regards/Ngā mihi
Brian
On 06-Jun-26 13:12, John R Levine wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026, Jay Daley wrote:
The difference is the lack of clarity around copyright. I don’t expect
a declaration to resolve that, but I do think it would benefit us
greatly later on when retrospective resolution is desired and
achievable.
The AI copyright question is so unresolved that I see little reason to
believe it would make much difference. I can easily imagine that
different LLMs will end up in different legal situations depending on how
much training material they emit, and what settlements the various LLMs
make with the LLM companies. So "I used an LLM to write 30% of this"
doesn't help if it turns out that it depends on which LLM it was.
Also, practically, if people make unauthorized derivative works, how much
does the IETF plan to spend trying to make them stop? When I was on the
trust the most we did was to write polite letters saying please don't do
that.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
