Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

--On Thursday, May 7, 2026 12:58 +0000 "Scudder, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 6, 2026, at 11:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[email protected]> wrote: 
>> 
>> Thr original intention was explicitly to allow the RFC series to
>> re-publish 3rd party specifications (whether proprietary, or
>> controlled
>> by another SDO).

> I had understood that a second reason for the clause was to allow
> authors to offer a spec for consideration as a WG document, without
> surrendering rights if the WG rejects it. In such cases, the spec
> would have to be republished by the author without the
> no-deriviatives clause as part of making it a WG doc. I speak under
> correction; I haven't taken the time to run down the prehistory
> and so this may be apocryphal.  

I don't remember, but I think the strong distinction implied by "WG
adoption" and posting of documents as draft-ietf-WGNAME-... rather
than draft-AuthorName-... came after the no-derivative language.  If
so, that was not a very strong reason.  My memory could be wrong
however.

> In any case, I'd still be OK with removing the option. I can't
> think of a single time I've seen it used deliberately and
> productively. I can think of at least one incident where it was
> used accidentally because the author used a template that included
> it and nobody noticed until it reached IESG review, which should
> tell us something about how much anyone cares in their day-to-day
> work. 

Alternately, a thing we could do, following Brian's explanation,
would be to make a distinction between 

(1) Republishing specifications already developed and approved by
other SDOs (or translations, commentary, critiques, or elaborations
on them), with "no derivative works" statement allowed.  That should
be much less necessary or common today than it was a few decades ago,
but it seems to me to be unwise to eliminate the possibility.   And

(2) Documents that represent new work with the hope or expectation of
IETF adoption.  For them, it would be reasonable to establish some
additional criteria or requirements.  I'd think those would start
with a requirement for a clear explanation of why the "no
derivatives" language was needed and justified forcing the pain on
the community to think about what was, or was not, legally permitted
when discussing the document.  If the acceptable requirements
included "trial balloon for DISPATCH consideration" as Rich suggested
[1], that would meet his concern while leaving the door open for
moderators shutting a discussion that strayed significantly from the
topic or go out of hand.  Presumably part of any DISPATCH or AD
Approval process with a conclusion other than "no interest" would
involve a requirement for a new draft with the no-derivatives
language removed.

Would that help thread this needle?
   
   john



[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/boG3AprloaVB0CloIqxNYjCwCLg