Re: List moderator action

> On 6 May 2026, at 12:48, Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> No we don’t.  Despite the multiple claims by armchair lawyers, 
> Well, are you a lawyer?

I’m the primary interface with IETF lawyers and regularly take advice from them, so I’m speaking from a well informed and advised position on legal matters relating to the IETF.

>> there is no legal issue, risk or confusion here, 
> Are you sure?

Yes

>  It's wrong because the definition of "Contribution" is imprecise. I think we'd all agree you can put a "no-derivatives" clause on an I-D. But the definitions in  RFC 3978 conflate all contributions. 
> 
> It's right there:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3978#section-5.2
> 
> Which part of BCP 78 prevents me from disallowing derivative works of any IETF contribution (like this email)? (which I am not doing, because I am not an epic pain)

I’ve explained it to you before [1] [2].  My point here is not to shake you of your view, but to clarify to those who might take your comments at face value, that people disagreeing with the IESG’s interpretation does not constitute a legal mess that the IETF needs to resolve. 

Jay

[1]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RCGqTMtQ6OdTBCeDytqa4QjN4Hw/
[2]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7VMTVyI3d7IgFRnRbnU9n2LdOok/

> 
> thanks,
> Rob


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email protected]