Re: List moderator action

>
> 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.



Quoting from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/
:

Hence, Contributors generally grant a license that includes the right to
> create derivative works. Three narrow exceptions to granting this right are
> defined Section 3.3 of  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378#section-3>RFC
> 5378 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5378/>:
>
>    - “documents describing proprietary technologies”,
>    - “documents that are republications of the work of other standards
>    organizations”,
>    - when a “Contributor may not want to grant publication rights or the
>    right to produce derivative works before finding out if a Contribution has
>    been accepted for development in the IETF Standards Process.”
>
> Section 5.3(c) of  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378#section-5.3>RFC
> 5378 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5378/> describes how the
> derivative work license can be withheld through the use of conforming
> Legend Instructions in the context of the narrow exemptions of Section 3.3
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378#section-3.3>. This section does
> not permit the application of Legend Instructions to any other kind of IETF
> Contribution.
>

No-derivative legend instructions in email contributons are allowed, **in
specific contexts**.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 5:23 AM Simon Josefsson <simon=
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> >
>