Re: no no derivatives, was legal consultation (was List moderator action)

On 08-May-26 06:38, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Salz, Rich <[email protected]> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>>   *
>> Therefore, IMHO it would be perfectly reasonable to disallow "no
>>   *
>> derivative rights" for all IETF stream contributions.
>>
>> That�s a really bad idea.  For example, I could post a draft with no-derivative as a trial balloon to see if the IETF is interested, say as a DISPATCH presentation. If not,
>> then I am free to take it to other places or to seek a patent.
> 
> Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you. These days, it would take about
> 10 seconds to stick a draft or draft-like thing on a server somewhere else and
> send a note to an IETF list saying take a look at my document at https://blah
> and tell us if you're interested.
> 
> Considering the length of this thread, I think the simplification would be worth it.
> I realize there is a process nit about how you might ask to DISPATCH somehthing if
> there isn't an I-D but I think we can deal with it.
> 
> By my count there have been 21 RFCs published with "no derivatives" lanaguage,
> the most recent RFC8216 in 2017. The last in the IETF stream was RFC7016 in
> 2013, over a decade ago.

And it could not be published in the IETF stream today, per RFC 8789.

Are there any other exemplars between RFC 5378 and RFC 8216?

     Brian