Re: List moderator action

Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Apr 2026 11:22:48 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Christian Hopps <[email protected]> writes:

> I always try and ask myself: “What is my goal” and then “is what I’m
> about to say/do the best way to accomplish that goal.” I don’t always
> get that right. This though has been painful to watch. I wish someone
> could help him out, apparently he has some expertise worth listening
> to if only he’s stick to it.

The same advice could be given to the policy makers and moderators of
this list.  What is the goal of banning DJB from making these posts?

The legal advice I depend on is that the IETF permit contributions that
do not grant derivative rights.  I've used it for a couple of I-Ds and
e-mails in the past.  This is what the BCP78 wording says:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5378#section-5.3

5.3.  Rights Granted by Contributors to the IETF Trust

   To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected
   by copyright or other rights of authorship, the Contributor and each
   named co-Contributor grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive,
   royalty-free, world-wide, sublicensable right and license to the IETF
   Trust under all such copyrights and other rights in the Contribution:
   ...
   c. to modify or prepare derivative works (in addition to
      translations) that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
      Contribution, and to copy, publish, display, and distribute such
      derivative works, or portions thereof unless explicitly disallowed
      in the notices contained in a Contribution (in the form specified
      by the Legend Instructions), and   

DJB is invoking the 'unless explicitly disallowed in the notices
contained in a Contribution (in the form specified by the Legend
Instructions)' clause here.

Censoring such Contributions appears to be based on an active legal
interpretation that seems problematic.  I wish the IETF wouldn't put
itself into this situation by making and supporting these actions.  I
wish the moderators would let these posts pass, allowing people to use
their own judgement to read, ignore or act on the content.

Scott Bradner, as author of BCP78, chimed in earlier on the intention
behind the no-derivative works function:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jhabM-FCGB9jzgXC_EUP0S_5U8Q/

I believe that supports the notion of e-mail Contributions with a
no-derivative clause in them.

I don't understand what the moderators hope to achieve here.  It seems
weird that the moderator action does not even cite what policy grants
them the authority to make their decision.

/Simon

>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>
> Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Stephen Farrell wrote on 28/04/2026 22:16:
>>> I have some sympathy with the above. IMO we are damaging ourselves
>>> somewhat by reacting too harshly to DJB’s useless footer text. The
>>> sequence of bans on various lists looks quite silly.
>>
>> if it had just been an issue of some footer text from a random punter, I’m
>> pretty sure it would have been quietly ignored or written off as yet more mild
>> eccentricity from yet another ietf participant. The problem was that
>> there were
>> legal threats in Dan’s emails, allegations of criminal activity, abusive
>> language directed at the ietf and its participants, unpleasant and demeaning
>> commentary, and a pile other unnecessary drama. I’m not much of a fan of
>> restricting peoples’ posting rights either, but Dan would help his
>> own cause by
>> cutting out the invective and generally being a bit more circumspect
>> about which
>> battles are worth fighting, and which are not. We all get up on our high horse
>> from time to time about something, but it’s exhausting when people get up on
>> their high horse about everything, all the time.
>>
>> Nick
>
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)