[saag] Re: on derivative work rights statements in emails to Security Area mailing lists

Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> Thu, 20 Nov 2025 02:02:33 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.saag
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hiya,

On 19/11/2025 22:18, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 
> The IESG statement gives us the option to consider repeated derivative
> rights claims as disruption.

I may well be in a small (dunno) minority here, but while I'm not
questioning your and Deb's conclusions on the topic, I do want to
say that I don't find the relevant footers disruptive myself. In
saying that I did chat briefly with Roman on this in Montreal and
he and some others I think are of the same opinion as yourselves,
and I accept those opinions as being as valid as my own. (It may
well be that I'm in a privileged position in terms of being able
to more easily ignore pseudo-legal nonsense:-)

However, I do continue to think the IESG statement is a case of
misdiagnosing the malady and reaching for the wrong remedy. But
it's likely not useful to try re-litigate that, and with a bit
of luck, the relevant person might decide that being disruptive
(which absolutely was the case) isn't even close to sensible, and
will maybe desist. (Not sure I'd bet a beer on that though;-)

This doesn't require any response, I just wanted to express my
disquiet at what I think isn't a great approach to tackling the
specific kinds of disruption we've seen that caused the IESG to
issue the statement.

Cheers,
S.

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 236 B)