[cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others

[Ryan Sleevi]

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
list.


>
>
> 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>