#1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

I think this has gone on long enough.

This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and I'll 
close it on February 28.

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF documents 
(such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to produce derivative 
works based on those pieces.

Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces do 
not need the right to produce such derivative works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that corresponds to the advice of counsel, and to the opinion of 
the vast majority of this working group.

Note that this has absolutely no effect on the need to have rights to 
practice applicable patents; this is strictly about copyright.

I know that Todd Glassey does not agree with this statement. Other people 
who do not agree with this statement are hereby encouraged to speak up; 
references to specific case law (in any jurisdiction) that is clearly 
contrary to this opinion will be appreciated.

                 Harald Alvestrand, co-chair of IPR WG

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org

Righs in mailing list articles (Re: #1197 Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...)

--On 20. februar 2006 10:10 +0100 Simon Josefsson <jas <at> extundo.com> wrote:

>> Yes.  It's not exactly obvious for me how to interpret BCP 78
>> wrt to mailing list articles and similar contributions, but I
>> guess it does the right thing.
>
> "IETF Contributions" include mailing list articles too.
>
> Making the IETF have rights to IETF posts may be a bit strange.  It
> seems the IETF only need those rights for RFC documents.

One reason why we have to have them is that in many cases, people will send 
messages like "I think better text for section X would be...." - and the 
editor will cut-and-paste that text into the document.

Unless the mailing list article is an "IETF contribution", the editor would 
have to check with the sender that he gives permission to use his words.

Keep It Simple.

                    Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:

> I think this has gone on long enough.
>
> This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and
> I'll close it on February 28.
>
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
> produce derivative works based on those pieces.

FWIW, I agree with this solution.

I note that some may consider 'text' to be something that you would
have to incorporate in an implementation in order to implement it.  My
point is that in the above, it may have been implied that only 'code'
is applicable for this rule.  I'm not sure if this was intentional.

Regards,
Simon

> Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces
> do not need the right to produce such derivative works.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> I believe that corresponds to the advice of counsel, and to the
> opinion of the vast majority of this working group.
>
> Note that this has absolutely no effect on the need to have rights to

Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

--On onsdag, februar 22, 2006 15:57:07 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<jas <at> extundo.com> wrote:

> arald Tveit Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> I think this has gone on long enough.
>>
>> This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and
>> I'll close it on February 28.
>>
>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
>> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
>> produce derivative works based on those pieces.
>
> FWIW, I agree with this solution.
>
> I note that some may consider 'text' to be something that you would
> have to incorporate in an implementation in order to implement it.  My
> point is that in the above, it may have been implied that only 'code'
> is applicable for this rule.  I'm not sure if this was intentional.

It was very much intentional that I wrote "pieces" and not "code" - that 
allows us to close this issue without having to solve the "what is code" 
issue first....

Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:

> --On onsdag, februar 22, 2006 15:57:07 +0100 Simon Josefsson
> <jas <at> extundo.com> wrote:
>
>> arald Tveit Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>>
>>> I think this has gone on long enough.
>>>
>>> This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and
>>> I'll close it on February 28.
>>>
>>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
>>> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
>>> produce derivative works based on those pieces.
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with this solution.
>>
>> I note that some may consider 'text' to be something that you would
>> have to incorporate in an implementation in order to implement it.  My
>> point is that in the above, it may have been implied that only 'code'
>> is applicable for this rule.  I'm not sure if this was intentional.
>
> It was very much intentional that I wrote "pieces" and not "code" -
> that allows us to close this issue without having to solve the "what
> is code" issue first....

Ok.

Re: Righs in mailing list articles (Re: #1197 Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...)

Harald I am replying to you personally offlist and Jorge on this one

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <jas <at> extundo.com>; "Frank Ellermann"
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:57 AM
Subject: Righs in mailing list articles (Re: #1197 Re: ISSUES How IP is
input and Intent...)

> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>

WG Review: Recharter of Intellectual Property Rights (ipr)

A modified charter has been submitted for the Intellectual Property Rights
(ipr) working group in the General Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any
determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational
purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list
(iesg <at> ietf.org) by March 1st.

+++

Intellectual Property Rights (ipr)
===================================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> 
Steven Bellovin <smb <at> cs.columbia.edu>

General Area Director(s):
Brian Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>

General Area Advisor:
Brian Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
To Subscribe: ipr-wg-request <at> ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/index.html

Description of Working Group:

Re: Righs in mailing list articles (Re: #1197 Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...)

--On onsdag, februar 22, 2006 06:59:23 -0800 todd glassey 
<todd.glassey <at> worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Harald I am replying to you personally offlist and Jorge on this one

Note that a private note to the WG chair is not mentioned in the NOTE WELL 
statement, so cannot with certainty be considered an "IETF Contribution".

I will not make any use of the offlist-contributed material in the 
evaluation of the result of the Last Call on the issue; this seems to be 
the most prudent course both legally and as an IETF process issue.

                    Harald

Another proposed #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Q: - what do you think of this proposal?

How about if we sidestep the "mechanical Derivative Rights process" entirely
and make those individuals inside the Standards Process address this and
file releases when they are ready for the IETF WG Chairs and AD's to review
the work for advancement???

Lets say that if it's a Standards Practice submission,  then it will need to
have this Mechanical Implementation Release issue addressed prior to the
first consideration of the first port. All this requires is that the
copyright notice constrain that it pertains to publication rights only and
nothing else, and "that all mechanical rights beyond 'republication for use
in the advancement of IETF Standards process' are controlled under other
'release instruments'".

That makes this a non-issue I guess, but also means that the Standards
Process document has to be revised to map to this as well and some prototype
document for releasing the instances of "derivative rights for the Standards
Use Only" and possibly a under "derivative rights for the Standards Use or
Commercial Use" as well...

Its a real simple process tweak and makes there no more real overhead for
the IETF except that the WG Chair is then culpable to make sure that the
paperwork is in order on any and all initiatives they Shepard through the
Standards Process.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <jas <at> extundo.com>

Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:

[...]

> Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such
> pieces do not need the right to produce such derivative works.

This appears to be a tautology. That is, works that do not incorporate
pieces are not derivative works, and therefore don't need any
permision.

Alternatively, the resolution is attempting to limit the extractable
part of IETF standards to specific portions of the standard to be
determined later, and forestall any further discussion on allowing the
larger portions of the work to be used as a derivative work.

If the latter is the case, I suggest removing it from the resolution,
as it's not clear that we've come to a consensus on that point;[1] if
the former is the case, I suggest removing it from the resolution, as
it is essentially a no-op.

Don Armstrong

1: I don't mean to reraise this point either, until we've dealt with
derived works of extracts of IETF standards, as this point is clearly
more contentious.
--

-- 
I'd never hurt another living thing.
But if I did...