Hello
I am sorry to inform the list members that the submittal of the experimental/informational RFC draft named:
"Scope Modifiers in Intellectual Property Declarations" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maturana-ipscope-02.txt (HTML version: http://www.internet-copyright.org)
has been refused by the RFC Editor in September 2005.
The idea of this DRAFT started from a discussion in
CNI-Copyright list:
https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/Message/3376167.html
Then announcing the submission:
https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/Message/3378863.html
The substance of the RFC Editor's response was implicitely based on the RFC2026 (The Internet Standards Process):
4.2.2 [..]
The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
4.2.3 [..]
The RFC Editor
is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
activity [...]
Finally, I choose to do not retry the submission to RFC Editor, so I inform the list and close this thread.
To be fair, I do not know yet, how I will manage this situation under a practical perspective :-)
I have no "public" ambition on this Draft. I am not sure that an
individual or corporate site will be the correct place to exhibit
a theorem of logic...
And I do not like the idea that people will consider that logical
scope modifiers are used under my authority (nor anyone else authority).
As far as I knew, the RFC library was the best place for the concepts
and applications described in this draft.
It seems that the RFC process philosophy has evolved in past years,
compared to previous RFC submissions (and I was a long time user of
the historical RFC...!)
But I cannot wait for years that the RFC Editor will be replaced or
the draft will be published.
I will appreciate any suggestion regarding the way to diffuse the contents of this draft. Sure, the logical implications needs to be developped. For now, I will continue to giv time to time.... :-)
To summarize, this RFC proposes to use Scope Modifiers in declarations of resources ownership for resources availables in interoperables environnements, such as Internet.
A basic exemple of such ownership declaration is:
internet(c) 2004 I.Maturana
The truth table of scope modifiers:
>
> The resource is | When the resource can be
> ------------------------------------------------
> PRIVATE | -REPRODUCED and -TRANSFORMED
> PROTECTED | +REPRODUCED but -TRANSFORMED
> INTERNET | -REPRODUCED but +TRANSFORMED
> PUBLIC | +REPRODUCED and +TRANSFORMED
>
Regards for all and thanks again for those who were interested by this thread !
internet(c) I.Robredo Maturana -- http://www.in3activa.org (LGT-FRv1r4 - http://www.in3activa.org/doc/fr/LGT-FR.html) Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 06:00:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT