Re: The definition of PGDG

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:38:29PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
> group (a concept really, as near as I can tell).

This is an interesting question, and one that the IETF faced a number of
years ago, winding up only recently. There are some possibly troubling bits
of news in the various IETF archives on this topic (in particular, pay
attention to the creation of the IETF trust).

That said, I have some reason to believe that the actual problem was not
that the copyright wasn't owned by a particular legal entity, but that there
were some individuals who were more or less threatening to prevent any new
work happening in order to satisfy their own agenda. The IETF decided to
compromise under the circumstances. (This is about all I know of the
topic.)

All of that said, the creation of the IETF Trust has resulted in some nasty,
corrosive discussions; significant legal costs; and a great deal of
distraction from the actual work of producing standards.

AFAICT, no harm was actually done over the years by the funny copyright
notices on IETF documents. So I suggest to leave well enough alone for the
time being. But I am not, to my chagrin, a lawyer; so if we think we need
legal advice on this topic, I suggest we make a request to FG, asking for
legal advice on the topic, "Do we need copyright assignment?" rather than
the topic, "To whom should copyright be assigned?"

> Is the PGDG actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take a
> stab at it?

Unless the "stabber" in question is actually a lawyer with specialisation in
corporate holdings, I'd like to ask that prospective stabbers not do this.
Bad formulations that might be used in any future legal discussion are in
practice considerably worse than no formulation at all.

A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke