Scott

> On 8 Jun 2026, at 08:47, Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Jay
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2026, at 6:26 PM, Jay Daley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Snip
> 
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> Note that the authors can do anything they want to do, we have no role 
> 
> You say - “preventing non-IETF derivatives of IETF standards” is something 
> the IETF does - can you provide specific examples of the
> IETF doing this?

Before I answer, for those who don’t know this subject as well as us, here’s 
the explicit statement in the TLP:

" d. Licenses that are not Granted. The following licenses are not granted 
pursuant to these Legal Provisions:
i. any license to modify IETF Contributions or IETF Documents, or portions 
thereof (other than to make translations or to extract, use and modify Code 
Components as permitted under the licenses granted under Section 4 of these 
Legal Provisions) in any context outside the IETF Standards Process, or"

If you are asking when the IETF has enforced this, I don’t know but I don’t 
believe it has while I’ve been in post (last 6ish years).  I would say this is 
strong evidence of the power of IETF policies and the licensing framework that 
instantiates them and if they were removed then derivations would proliferate.

> Scott. (Trying to understand why you think that AI disclosure is important 
> (or even useful)

Having read John’s recent posts on this, I can see a danger in this disclosure 
i had not seen before, that some people might naively assume that any of our 
documents that use AI cannot be copyrighted per se and therefore our licensing 
rules are invalid. 

Jay

> 
> Scott


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email protected]

-- 
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to