Mailing List Archive

Julian Mehnle wrote:

>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi

> What troubles me is the intellectual property issue.

I'm an "involuntary member" of their IPR WG because I don't
like the legalese in Internet drafts, and proposed to rename
"ipr=full3978" to "ipr=fullshit" for the xml2rfc DTD, using
whatever rules are actual at the time of submission.

For a mailing list like spf-discuss I think the main point
is: If somebody today demands to remove an article posted
by him from the listbox / GMaNe / gossamer / ... archives,
the list owner (Meng) or moderator (who's that here, Scott?)
can't do that. Maybe they can wrt listbox. Maybe I offer
to do it on GMaNe, maybe I don't want cash for the service.

Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".

So far the ordinary cases for ordinary folks. Then there
can be employees of IBM, MS, etc. with an urge to talk about
"intellectual property" of their employer on a public list.

Whatever problems that could cause, "NOTE WELL" again turns
it into "told you so", protecting the IETF trust.

> I'd prefer us to be very, very conservative with changing
> the IPR nature of spf-discuss.

Yes. My gut feeling is that it's minimally better than now,
the IETF trust has a lawyer, unlike say openspf.org - but
actually openspf.org is no legal entity, and the SPF discuss
list is managed under listbox rules with list owner Meng.

You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue what it
_is_ at the moment ? I never looked into listbox AUP, I can
only tell that GMaNe is run by Lars, and Lars does what he
likes best... :-)

Frank


-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

Julian Mehnle wrote:

>> Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".

> Sure, but the question is: do we _want_ to tell our
> subscribers that? I'm feeling very reluctant.

Well, do they know that this list has adopted RFC 3984 with
a decree claiming to be posted by Meng based on a "consensus"
(as far as a poster "Frank" is permitted to say "consensus") ?

FWIW, do the current moderators still know this ? I think
it's not noted on the Web site. Instead of adding a link to
RFC 3984 on the forum page adding a link to NOTE WELL would
take care of this.

For lists like "cosmogol" (Stephane's "finite state machine"),
"mass" (predecessor of what's now the DKIM list and WG),
"clear" (BATV + CSV, officially closed by Dave Crocker), etc.
almost nobody cares about this formality.

The "cosmogol" list is listed as "other list". And while
"clear" wasn't it had "ietf" in it's list ID and address.

Putting the SPF list on this "other list" page is a part of
what I consider as "promoting SPF". And it offers wiggle
room for future (potential) "IETF political" issues like
"do 4408bis in a proper WG, as individual submission, or
like xmpp.org (jabber) with liaisons"

For Cosmogol I proposed to arrange this with Lisa, and
that's apparently what Stephane did. I think the BoF was
a success - no WG yet, but still a success. DKIM needed
two BoFs. We can't go that way because we can't pay to
visit IETF meetings regularly (going once is pointless).

There are drafts about "winning friends in a standards
development organization" and "successful BOFs". Never
again will "they" take me again by a surprise as in the
unilateral termination of MARID.

Without that dirty trick we'd work on the Draft Standard
today instead of being stuck with this pseudo-experiment.

>> You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue
>> what it _is_ at the moment ?

> Since no explicit agreement has been made, everyone has
> copyright on their articles, probably with an implied
> license to redistribute.

NOTE WELL turns "probably" to "definitely" wrt archiving
articles (and making those archives public). Otherwise
the copyright won't change under NOTE WELL, the IETF is
_religious_ about "individual participation", no matter
who pays for the time spent to write and post articles.

> Everything else (quoting, etc.) is covered by fair use.

Yes, that's outside of whatever listbox etc. might claim.

In theory you could say that I'm not allowed to forward
an article posted by you here to another list (or rather
you can say whatever you wish also in practice, but it's
a theoretical case if you try to enforce it.)

Under NOTE WELL a contribution is a contribution, and
if you don't like me to forward your article to an IETF
list the IETF Trust - when you sue them to enforce your
view - would pull "told you so". I think it's harmless.

Frank


-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".

Sure, but the question is: do we _want_ to tell our subscribers that? I'm
feeling very reluctant.

> > I'd prefer us to be very, very conservative with changing the IPR
> > nature of spf-discuss.
>
> Yes. My gut feeling is that it's minimally better than now, the IETF
> trust has a lawyer, unlike say openspf.org - but actually openspf.org is
> no legal entity, and the SPF discuss list is managed under listbox rules
> with list owner Meng.
>
> You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue what it _is_ at the
> moment ?

Since no explicit agreement has been made, everyone has copyright on their
articles, probably with an implied license to redistribute. Everything
else (quoting, etc.) is covered by fair use.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGBurdwL7PKlBZWjsRAphdAKDwv/a2jHm8stsYXrlIg3VcIFb7vwCfRlDc
uVEn366pnXXN3sn83hdFT4E=
=8ppL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

Julian Mehnle wrote on Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:34 PM -0600:

> Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".
>
> Sure, but the question is: do we _want_ to tell our subscribers that?
> I'm feeling very reluctant.

I think we want to say this explicitly. Without that, there is always
the question of whether the archives reflect the actual discussion that
took place.


> > > I'd prefer us to be very, very conservative with changing the IPR
> > > nature of spf-discuss.
> >
> > Yes. My gut feeling is that it's minimally better than now, the
> > IETF trust has a lawyer, unlike say openspf.org - but actually
> > openspf.org is no legal entity, and the SPF discuss list is managed
> > under listbox rules with list owner Meng.
> >
> > You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue what it _is_ at
> > the moment ?
>
> Since no explicit agreement has been made, everyone has copyright on
> their articles, probably with an implied license to redistribute.
> Everything else (quoting, etc.) is covered by fair use.

IANAL, but as a public list user, I can tell you that interpretation
would make the discussion not public and far from transparent. List
contributors need to know that *all* submissions are public from the
moment of posting, and that exceptions are not available to anyone. An
explicit statement to this effect keeps the process transparent.

Franks suggested disclaimer appears a good way to accomplish that. If
the IETF consulted legal counsel when putting that together (did they?),
we likely won't do better on our own.

--
Seth Goodman

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

On Sunday 25 March 2007 15:30, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> If somebody today demands to remove an article posted
> by him from the listbox / GMaNe / gossamer / ... archives,
> the list owner (Meng) or moderator (who's that here, Scott?)
> can't do that. Maybe they can wrt listbox. Maybe I offer
> to do it on GMaNe, maybe I don't want cash for the service.

I was only tapped by Meng and confirmed by the council (first one) to moderate
spf-help. Although I have technical access to moderate spf-discuss, I have
never done so (except intervening once to stop a mail loop).

As nearly as I can determine, there is no way to remove an article from the
listbox archive. In any case, the lists are archived enough places that such
a request would be pointless.

IIRC, all or possible almost all, unsubscriptions from spf-help that I've done
have been for technical reasons (multiple out of office messages to the
2822-From is the most common). I'd hate to have additional rules that
interfered with my ability to run the list.

Scott K

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I'd hate to have additional rules that interfered with my
> ability to run the list.

There are no additional rules wrt list management, unsubscribing
spammers and similar technical issues are not the point of the
NOTE WELL.

The "certified trolls" RFC doesn't affect us, there are only
two, and if they show up all the troll-RFC says is that the
moderator can ban them if they behave as "certified trolls".

Last but not least RFC 3894, we already adopted that, and in
essence it means that moderators are supposed to do what the
name says (= moderate) by private mail, if that doesn't help
by a public warning, and if that still doesn't help they can
ban trolls for some time.

Actually I think this part of the "NOTE WELL" was never used
on any of these "other lists" (after all RFC 3894 isn't old,
we adpted it when it was fresh here).

With one exception on the language tag review list, that guy
made it later to become the "second certified" troll.

Frank


-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735