Subject: RFC 5378 "contributions"

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:32:27 -0800

Hi -

I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...

The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
However, the definition of "contribution" in that document
includes, among other things, mailing list discussions.

Does this mean that we need to get contributor permission
before using, for example, material from a pre-5378 RFC in
a mailing list discussion, or before including text from a
pre-5378 email posting in an internet draft?

This seems really silly, but that's what the discussion is
starting to sound like to me.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:38:57 +1300

> starting to sound like to me.

IANAL, but it seems to me that we should proceed on the assumption
that this would fall under fair use provisions. Anything else
would seem unreasonable to me.

It also seems to me that a WG Last Call on a draft containing the
new boilerplate would act as fair warning to all participants,
and if they don't object, they've effectively consented. But
again, IANAL. IJWTGMWD (I just want to get my work done).

    Brian

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:41:53 -0500

> again, IANAL. IJWTGMWD (I just want to get my work done).

Both of these are my take too, but my opinion doesn't count.

Marshall

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:43:00 -0800

>would seem unreasonable to me.

IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread, but the phrase "fair use" does not appear in RFC 5378. Maybe it should.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:30:37 +0100

> IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread, but the phrase "fair use" does not appear in RFC 5378. Maybe it should.
"Fair use" is a concept of US law. 5378 tried to use language with 
reasonably global definitions.

At one point it was suggested that RFC 5377 (desires for outgoing 
rights) should refer to "fair use", but section 4.1 ended up saying that 
we want to grant unlimited permission to quote instead.

               Harald

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:24:19 -0000

>IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread, but the
>phrase "fair use" does not appear in RFC 5378. Maybe it should.

Fair use is specific to the U.S.  Most other countries have similar
legal concepts under other names like fair dealing, but they all
differ in minor ways.  This would run us into the swamp of what legal
system we're subject to.

I do have to say that this whole argument seems awfully hypothetical
to me.  No sensible person will ever sue for his text being reused
from an RFC, non-sensible people will sue no matter what we do.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf