[cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Mar 2 19:24:09 UTC 2015

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:13 AM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:

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

Microsoft and several CAs.

> 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.

Exactly so.

> 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.

Sure. But that's not what the bylaws state. Our bylaws restrict who can
post to the public list. If we truly mean it to be just a technical
control, then I can trivially circumvent that by setting up an
auto-forwarder, at which point, it makes more sense just to open the public
list to the public and dispense with any notion of a private, members-only

> 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.

I wish I shared your optimism, considering that this was actively discussed
in the 1.5 years leading to the IPR policy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150302/1a4870a8/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list