Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue Tracker

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:04:50 -0700

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

> I did install the latest xml2rfc DTD. It does produce some of the 
> correct magic mumbles, but not 6.c.iii. Since we include the 6.c.iii 
> mumble, I have applied the noDerivatives200811 IPR directive.

That would be exactly the wrong IPR statement to use in draft-4645bis, 
since one of its major raisons d'être is to allow IANA to create a 
derivative work, namely the replacement Language Subtag Registry.  So 
I'm eagerly awaiting guidance on what statement I should use.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:42:17 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair:

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue Tracker
>
...

noDerivatives200811 is definitely NOT the option to use.

With regard to 4645bis, the question is whether Doug, as editor,
sees a need for the 6.c.iii option.  That's it, and it's his
decision.  If all (or practically all) the words are his, or
were his in a previous incarnation, then there should be no
need for the 6.c.iii text.

Also worth keeping in mind: what is the likelihood that someone
who contributed substantial text (not just an idea) to the development
of 4645bis would sue if IANA used that text?  What is the probability
that such a litigant would prevail in court?

Randy

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:57:00 -0800

I have no objection to omitting the 6.c.iii from 4645bis (or including it, if Doug prefers). Should Mark and I file anything related to 4645bis? After all, I suppose one could obliquely consider draft-langtag (way back at the start of this project) to be the source of 4645 (neither of us has ever edited the document, please note).

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:42 AM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:35:15 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair...

> From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:57 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Issue Tracker
>
> I have no objection to omitting the 6.c.iii from 4645bis (or including it,
> if Doug prefers). Should Mark and I file anything related to 4645bis?

The "Contributor Non-Exclusive License" at http://trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html
is still undergoing revision.  If you like, you could fill it out and send
it in when it becomes possible to do so.  In the meantime, if you and
Mark made clear on this list your intent to do so, that should be sufficient
to make life easier for Doug. (BTW, I also intend to sign the "Contributor
Non-Exclusive License" when it becomes available.)

In Doug's case, if he is comfortable that the relevant contributors
are willing to grant the same rights for their pre-RFC 5378
contributions as they now grant under the "NOTE WELL" currently in
effect, (that's what signing the license accomplishes) then he doesn't
need to do the 6.c.iii.  The only reason I encourage doing 6.c.iii for
*4646bis* is that there's a much larger set of contributors whose text
may have made it verbatim into the document, and it's not immediately clear
whether all of them have agreed / will agree to the RFC 5378 terms for
their pre-RFC 5378 contributions.

> After all, I suppose one could obliquely consider draft-langtag
> (way back at the start of this project) to be the source of 4645
> (neither of us has ever edited the document, please note).

In this particular case, since the issue is copyright, there is
a concern only if significant text has been copied verbatim.
If the authors of that earlier work can assure Doug that they
agree to the 5378 terms, then there is no need for 6.c.iii,
at least as far as those portions of the text are concerned.

I hope this makes things clearer.  (I also hope that I've understood
the issues correctly.  Martin, please speak up if I've mis-stated
anything.)

Randy

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:14:55 -0800

> In the meantime, if you and Mark made clear on this list your intent to do
so

I do intend to file the Contributor Non-Exclusive License (assuming that the
terms are not bizarre -- the whole roll-out of this new policy has been,
let's say, suboptimal).

Mark

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:52:59 +0900

Hello Randy, others,

I agree with almost everything. On 4645bis, I'd note that:
- The text in there is mostly if not completely fresh.
- Some of the data part isn't fresh, but that's a mechanical
  compilation.
- Based on the above and similar considerations, Doug already
  submitted an I-D without the pre-RFC 5378 escape hatch,
  so the decision has already been made.
- If there is anything serious from the very early independent
  drafts that Addison and Mark wrote remaining in 4645bis, then
  what would be needed from Addison and Mark is just telling
  us (or Doug, to be specific) that they are okay for 4645bis
  without the escape hatch, which I think they have already done.
  Them signing the form is not a bad idea, but can be done
  separately.

Regards,   Martin.

>the issues correctly.  Martin, please speak up if I've mis-stated

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]