[cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others

kirk_hall at trendmicro.com kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Mon Mar 2 19:13:06 UTC 2015

Trend Micro never favored the IPR requirements in the first place.  As I recall, it was pushed by some of the browsers.

As I said in my earlier post, I can live with requiring an IPR Agreement (reluctantly) for Forum membership, and maybe for membership on Working Groups, as participants may be actively involved in drafting new requirements.  But I see no reason to require it for postings to a public list-serv open to everyone to post and read if we establish one.  I think we should, just keep it separate from the Management@ and Public@ list-servs, which would continue to be for members and interested parties only.

Right now, if someone posts to the Questions@ address (which does not require signing an IPR agreement), all Forum members see the post already – so if we as members are somehow being fed private IP information subject to secret patents, it is already happening with no IPR agreement.

Reposting to the Public list (as people have done in the past) does not “expose” CABF members to any new ideas – they already saw all the ideas from the original post to the Questions@ list.  The only difference is that with reposting NON-members get to see the same post, and any response.  So to be blunt, I think claiming there is an IPR issue in reposting messages already sent to and viewed by Forum members via the Questions@ list is totally without merit.

And if Google and Mozilla allow public postings to your lists without an IPR agreement – the Forum should do the same.

Let’s come up with a solution at the Cupertino meeting.  There has been a desire for more openness and allowing some way for the public to participate in our deliberations, and this should be easy to solve.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: Gervase Markham; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:00 AM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:
Ryan and Gerv – do Google and Mozilla require members of the public to sign (click-through) IPR agreement to post to your various lists?  If not, why not?

No. Nor does the W3C nor IETF require this.

I would be in favor of eliminating the Forum’s IPR agreement requirement for public postings (especially if that is what Google and Mozilla do).

Then why have an IPR policy at all?


<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150302/7b24217a/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list