Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)
"John Levine" <[email protected]> 6 May 2026 21:05:10 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | Taughannock Networks |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
It appears that Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Rob Sayre <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi, I wrote it up: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative/ > >Thanks for writing that. > >I don't think it make sense to permit I-D's to prohibit derivative works >and at the same time forbid presentation or e-mail posts about the I-D >to use the same clause. ... RFC 5378 lists the two specific situations where I-D's can forbid derivatives: There are two exceptions to this requirement: documents describing proprietary technologies and documents that are republications of the work of other standards organizations. E-mail messages fit into neither of these categories. Putting on my dread Junior Lawyer hat, I agree with Joel that mail messages arguing about a draft are unlikely to be considered derivative works, even if they quote bits of the original document. If nonetheless a court thought that they were derivative, the fair use defense would apply. If someone tried to sue to enforce no-derivatives in an e-mail, I think it is implausible that they would win, but even if you win a copyright suit you are typically out tens of thousands of dollars (in US courts each party pays their own costs), so the chilling effect is real. R's, John