If this list is still active, people might be interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16948544 Regards Brian Carpenter
Not sure where to discuss this, so I'll try the old ipr-wg mailing list. I read through this document and it strikes me as not benig quite sure what it wants to do. On the one hand, their seems to be an undercurrent of IETF participants not really living up to their obligations wrt IPR, which is bad. Specifically, they don't make disclosures when they should, and something should be done about that. On the other hand, the document appears loath to actually change the behavior of WGs or individuals. So it makes some possible suggestions, but they come across as weak and have no real push behind them. My guess would be that the document as it is written now would have little impact on anyone's behavior. IMO, the IETF suffers a bit from a "don't ask don't tell" mentality when it comes to IETF disclosures. We have a policy (and procedure), but the process is not always adhered to rigourously, and folk seem afraid to actually do much about it. That means there is widely varying behavior amongst different individuals, even if the majority of participants do the right thing. IMO, what might help is bringing more uniformity to the actual operational processes when it comes to IPR. For example, if WGs aren't always informed about IPR when they should, why not make it a SHOULD that WG chairs explicitely ask all the authors for confirmation that they understand their IPR obligations and have done so, as per the boilerplate in the IDs themselves. This can be done the first time a -00 is presented to a WG, again when the(Continue reading)
Hi, I have a filed accepted provisional patent application(s) that bears on an IETF draft. RFC 3979 says "The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on unpublished patent applications." That's fine, because provisional patent applications are not published. But the IPR submission template only provides for "an unpublished pending patent application". There is no sense that I understand in which my provisional patent filing(s) are "pending". They are fully accepted and there is no further action the US Patent office is going to take on it/them. The word "pending" should be stricken from the template. Having no idea how long this will take to fix, I will probably go ahead and file adding a Note explaining what is going on and pointing out this error in the form. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
On 10/13/2010 4:52 PM, Carl Reed wrote: > s and 1980's. Further, much of the early work in the OGC - such as in > web mapping - predates by at least a couple of years most of the web > mapping related patents The real issue is the outgoing license which does not mandate that each adopter MUST (and I means that 'must' in caps) do formal diligence on their use of these IP's because the IETF cannot give anyone license to directly or indirectly assign, use, reproduce or convey any rights pertaining to the underlying Intellectual Properties that are described in the IETF Publications referred to as Internet Drafts and other public documents they produce. Further the IETF's Copyright ss107 rights only pertain to actions in furtherance of the IETF's research meaning "ANY USE OF THEIR IP WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM IS ALSO CONSTRAINED BY NOTEWELL AND THE IETF PROCESSES SINCE THE ONLY POSSIBLE USE OF COPYRIGHT ACT SECTION 107 USE OF RESEARCH-EXEMPTIONS MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THAT FORMAL FRAMEWORK THAT THE IP WAS INITIALLY PUBLISHED IN OR IT WILL CONSTITUTE PRIVATE USE TO FURTHER A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR WHETHER THAT ENDEAVOR IS ACADEMIC IN FORM OR IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TOTALLY. What I find interesting is that any IDIOT who reads the copyright act would get that. So it means that the NOTEWELL practice as its sits is legally broken - the question is whether the management of the IETF has potential liability for this stupidity in its process-design is not something I want to touch on here. So this all boils down to 1) Whether the IETF's and OGC are functionally licensing technology to people which is already protected by existing IP protections or not. 2) Whether the SDG's reliance on (c) section 107 is an issue for anyone republishing those documents with copyrighted content from others in them since the IETF is allowing parties to use its documents for any and all purposes outside of the IETF's standards process by functionally ignoring these issues. Personally I think these are real issues for the IETF but that's just my two cents. Todd Glassey -- -- //----------------------------------------------------------------- This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
RFC 5378 says: It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except in the case where such document is the product of a joint development effort between the IETF and another standards development organization or is a republication of the work of another standards development organization. This has prevented the authors of two different documents from including the code that they wanted in their document. Here is the header that was part of the code that the authors wanted to include: /* * This is a copy of getopt provided for those systems that do not * have it. The name was changed to xgetopt to not conflict on those * systems that do have it. Similarly, optarg, optind and opterr * were renamed to xoptarg, xoptind and xopterr. * * Copyright 1990, 1991, 1992 by the Massachusetts Institute of * Technology and UniSoft Group Limited. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in * supporting documentation, and that the names of MIT and UniSoft not * be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of * the software without specific, written prior permission. MIT and * UniSoft make no representations about the suitability of this * software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express * or implied warranty. * * $XConsortium: getopt.c,v 1.2 92/07/01 11:59:04 rws Exp $ * NB: Reformatted to match above style. */ Are we really serving the community by preventing the inclusion of such code components? If we do want to allow them, how would we adjust the rules? Russ
The Note Well says in part > > > ...which are addressed to: > > • The IETF plenary session > • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG > • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any > working > group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF > auspices > • Any IETF working group or portion thereof > • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB > • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function > > > Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or do the other streams need their own Note Well ? Regards Marshall
I feel like I've seen this discussion before.... http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/03/update_on_html_5_document_lice.html Excerpt: The result of discussion among the Membership is that there is strong support for: * a license that allows the reuse of excerpts in software, software documentation, test suites, and other scenarios; * a license (or licenses) that are familiar to the open source community; * processes that encourage innovation and experimentation about Web technology, so that work can be easily brought to W3C for standardization; * making the HTML Working Group a forum that is conducive to participation by the community at large; * ensuring that the HTML 5 specification remains valuable to the entire Web community (see an update from Philippe Le Hégaret on HTML <http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0323-html-plh/> that he presented to the Membership). In short, there is strong support in the Membership (but not unanimity) for all of the use cases cited by the HTML Working Group /except/ forking the specification. Several W3C Members do feel strongly that the document license should allow forking, however.
The reason I bring this up is this work by John Gregory (an Attorney for the Policy Group in the Canadian Prime Ministers office) on when eSign is binding and when it is not. The problem I am having is that there is no eSign process for IP based on an emailing with no commentary for submission and well... it means that NoteWell probably doesnt work the way we think it does. http://www.euclid.ca/reliability_sigs.pdf -- -- Todd Glassey
YEs, I have been pointed out privately about the fact that commercial interests keep some RFC code at the heart of the products, which can't be of course given for free, otherwise commerce dies out. Yes, I agree - I respect commercial interests and I live on commercial interests by the way. That said - people lived on commercial interests before too, without "BSD" at the beginning of each RFC. This "BSD" in the preamble looks as something very bad may have happened, I don't know what. Alex
Hi IPR WG, I have interest in licensing and IPR of the technology in RFCs. I recently stumbled on the RPL protocol WG item draft (in the RoLL WG, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks) and worried about "Code Components" in the boilerplate. Could one implement RPL in a linux kernel? Knowing that linux kernel is mostly GPL, avoiding BSD, and that I see the word BSD in the bolierplate. If I may be missing something - sorry, Alex
RSS Feed18 | |
|---|---|
3 | |
2 | |
1 | |
3 | |
2 | |
10 | |
4 | |
1 | |
68 | |
35 | |
1 | |
4 | |
1 | |
7 | |
15 | |
5 | |
8 | |
30 | |
12 | |
6 | |
3 | |
15 | |
21 | |
71 | |
43 | |
128 | |
37 | |
1 | |
21 | |
28 | |
39 | |
22 | |
101 | |
139 | |
71 | |
8 | |
27 | |
85 | |
30 | |
54 | |
73 | |
135 | |
6 | |
113 | |
85 | |
32 | |
80 | |
6 | |
43 | |
124 | |
111 | |
117 | |
115 | |
177 | |
54 | |
166 | |
72 | |
266 | |
131 | |
1 | |
28 | |
1 | |
20 | |
194 | |
86 | |
113 | |
21 | |
18 | |
10 | |
1 | |
3 | |
4 | |
31 | |
29 | |
6 | |
10 | |
4 | |
41 | |
2 | |
9 | |
157 | |
91 | |
282 | |
100 | |
230 | |
481 | |
347 | |
4 | |
19 | |
133 | |
44 | |
9 | |
3 | |
55 | |
51 |
