headers
Steve Bellovin | 3 Feb 2003 21:48
Picon

boilerplate for IPR

A couple of documents that have come before the IESG recently have
shown that there is some confusion about the proper copyright notice
that I-Ds should have.  We propose adding language to the "Submissions"
document to clarify the three cases:  full IETF rights, no derivative
works, and "not an RFC".  The first is mandatory for all standards-track
documents.  The second form may be used when issuing a non-IETF
document as an I-D in preparation for publishing it as an Informational
RFC, for example when publishing the output of another standards
body, or when publishing a proprietary protocol.  The third form
may be appropriate for an I-D that contains background and educational
documents for working group discussion, but it cannot be used in
any I-D intended to be published as an RFC, because it does not
grant rights sufficient to allow such publication.
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Feb 2003 05:06
Picon

Re: boilerplate for IPR

I believe the term "no derivative works" in the second case is a misnomer.
As Jorge said, it's inconsistent with the rights granted under the general 
copyright notice, and the published RFC can be considered a derived work 
from the internet-draft.

I'd suggest changing the second version to saying that "the right to issue 
revised versions of this document is not granted" - I believe that this is 
what is usually intended; I think people using this boilerplate usually 
don't mind the preparation of derivative works that comment on the 
document, make it available in other languages or make extracts to assist 
in usage of the technology (such as MIBs), as described in the full 
copyright notice.

                       Harald

--On 3. februar 2003 15:48 -0500 Steve Bellovin <smb <at> research.att.com> 
wrote:

> A couple of documents that have come before the IESG recently have
> shown that there is some confusion about the proper copyright notice
> that I-Ds should have.  We propose adding language to the "Submissions"
> document to clarify the three cases:  full IETF rights, no derivative
> works, and "not an RFC".  The first is mandatory for all standards-track
> documents.  The second form may be used when issuing a non-IETF
> document as an I-D in preparation for publishing it as an Informational
> RFC, for example when publishing the output of another standards
> body, or when publishing a proprietary protocol.  The third form
> may be appropriate for an I-D that contains background and educational
> documents for working group discussion, but it cannot be used in
> any I-D intended to be published as an RFC, because it does not
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 4 Feb 2003 12:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: boilerplate for IPR

I think it's incorrect that boilerplate #2 is applicable to
Infromationals-to-be (writing as a not-a-lawyer). Certainly I always
advise my colleagues to get managerial approval for boilerplate #1 if 
they are aiming even at Informational RFC publication, exactly
because of the ISOC copyright notice.

If that is so, I don't see any need to change boilerplate #2. I
suspect that "derivative works" is the legalese for "revised version"
anyway.

Maybe the simplest solution is to abolish boilerplate #2. Make
people decide if they're in or they're out. 

   Brian

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> I believe the term "no derivative works" in the second case is a misnomer.
> As Jorge said, it's inconsistent with the rights granted under the general
> copyright notice, and the published RFC can be considered a derived work
> from the internet-draft.
> 
> I'd suggest changing the second version to saying that "the right to issue
> revised versions of this document is not granted" - I believe that this is
> what is usually intended; I think people using this boilerplate usually
> don't mind the preparation of derivative works that comment on the
> document, make it available in other languages or make extracts to assist
> in usage of the technology (such as MIBs), as described in the full
> copyright notice.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 5 Feb 2003 12:44
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IETF Rights in Submissions
	Author(s)	: S. Bradner
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt
	Pages		: 14
	Date		: 2003-2-4
	
The IETF policies about rights in submissions to the IETF are
designed to ensure that IETF contributions can be made available to
the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to
retain as many rights in the document as possible. This memo details
the IETF policies on rights in submissions to the IETF. It also
describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Scott Bradner | 5 Feb 2003 13:15
Picon
Favicon

revised submission rights ID


this is a revision of the submission rights ID that deals with the comments
I saw during the WG last call and since

Scott

-----
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:44:28 -0500
Sender: ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IETF Rights in Submissions
	Author(s)	: S. Bradner
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt
	Pages		: 14
	Date		: 2003-2-4
	
The IETF policies about rights in submissions to the IETF are
designed to ensure that IETF contributions can be made available to
the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to
retain as many rights in the document as possible. This memo details
the IETF policies on rights in submissions to the IETF. It also
describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 5 Feb 2003 13:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: boilerplate for IPR

I'd like to revise this. If the only copyright notice
available is that in RFC 2026, what I said makes sense.
But draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt defines
two alternative copyright texts, and for the second
of those, boilerplate #2 is suitable.

So, if we reach consensus on this draft, we still need
all three boilerplates. 

   Brian

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> I think it's incorrect that boilerplate #2 is applicable to
> Infromationals-to-be (writing as a not-a-lawyer). Certainly I always
> advise my colleagues to get managerial approval for boilerplate #1 if
> they are aiming even at Informational RFC publication, exactly
> because of the ISOC copyright notice.
> 
> If that is so, I don't see any need to change boilerplate #2. I
> suspect that "derivative works" is the legalese for "revised version"
> anyway.
> 
> Maybe the simplest solution is to abolish boilerplate #2. Make
> people decide if they're in or they're out.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Scott Bradner | 5 Feb 2003 13:52
Picon
Favicon

Re: boilerplate for IPR

> But draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt defines
> two alternative copyright texts, and for the second
> of those, boilerplate #2 is suitable.

just to be clear - this is current practice - the 2nd copyright
form was developed a number of years ago to be used on those RFCs
where derivative rights were not included - it had not been 
documented but recient discussions remined me that it existed and
should be documented

Scott
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 6 Feb 2003 06:02
Picon

Re: boilerplate for IPR


--On 4. februar 2003 12:23 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brian <at> hursley.ibm.com> 
wrote:

> I think it's incorrect that boilerplate #2 is applicable to
> Infromationals-to-be (writing as a not-a-lawyer). Certainly I always
> advise my colleagues to get managerial approval for boilerplate #1 if
> they are aiming even at Informational RFC publication, exactly
> because of the ISOC copyright notice.
>
> If that is so, I don't see any need to change boilerplate #2. I
> suspect that "derivative works" is the legalese for "revised version"
> anyway.

it's not - the ISOC copyright notice talks about derived works that are 
commentaries on the RFC, translations of the RFC or extracts from the RFC.
That's what caused me to think there was a problem - we're either wrong or 
inconsistent.

                 Harald
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Contreras, Jorge | 6 Feb 2003 21:47

RE: boilerplate for IPR

In the U.S.:

Translations and revisions of a work are generally derivative works.

Commentaries on a work are not generally derivative works unless they contain excerpts from the work.

I hope that helps.

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald <at> alvestrand.no]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:03 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: boilerplate for IPR

--On 4. februar 2003 12:23 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brian <at> hursley.ibm.com> 
wrote:

> I think it's incorrect that boilerplate #2 is applicable to
> Infromationals-to-be (writing as a not-a-lawyer). Certainly I always
> advise my colleagues to get managerial approval for boilerplate #1 if
> they are aiming even at Informational RFC publication, exactly
> because of the ISOC copyright notice.
>
> If that is so, I don't see any need to change boilerplate #2. I
> suspect that "derivative works" is the legalese for "revised version"
> anyway.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bill Patterson | 6 Feb 2003 22:32
Picon
Favicon

Re: boilerplate for IPR

IANAL, but generally excepts in reviews are considered "fair use."

"Contreras, Jorge" wrote:

> In the U.S.:
>
> Translations and revisions of a work are generally derivative works.
>
> Commentaries on a work are not generally derivative works unless they contain excerpts from the work.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Jorge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald <at> alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:03 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: boilerplate for IPR
>
> --On 4. februar 2003 12:23 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brian <at> hursley.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it's incorrect that boilerplate #2 is applicable to
> > Infromationals-to-be (writing as a not-a-lawyer). Certainly I always
> > advise my colleagues to get managerial approval for boilerplate #1 if
> > they are aiming even at Informational RFC publication, exactly
> > because of the ISOC copyright notice.
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane