headers
Internet-Drafts | 4 Oct 2005 00:50
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.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		: RFC 3978 Update
	Author(s)	: S. Bradner
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt
	Pages		: 5
	Date		: 2005-10-3
	
   This Internet Draft proposes two additions to ^IETF Rights in
   Contributions^ (RFC3978).  The first addition permits the extraction
   of material from IETF RFCs for a wide range of uses.  The second
   addition obtains from contributors the right, but not the
   requirement, to grant permission to create derivative outside of the
   IETF Standards Process.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

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-rules-update-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steven M. Bellovin | 4 Oct 2005 00:56

draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

Folks, draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt is the primary work item left 
for this WG.  Is this a direction we want to go?  Is this the way to 
get there?

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Pekka Savola | 4 Oct 2005 07:26
Picon

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Folks, draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt is the primary work item left
> for this WG.  Is this a direction we want to go?  Is this the way to
> get there?

The clause on extracting material is OK.

The text on the rights to create derivative works is confusing, 
however.  RFC3978 section 3.3 states that it's OK to make derivative 
works for the IETF standards process or an internet-draft.  You'll 
need to closely examine the definitions to note that 'IETF Standards 
Process' applies to all IETF RFCs, not just those on the standards 
track.

In any case, the suggested revised section 3.3 (a) (C) does not 
specify who makes that case-by-case judgment/consensus call.  That 
seems like an important detail which need to be specified.

As for "is this the way to get there?" -- I'd say, initially (to 
evaluate whether there is WG consensus or not) this is OK.  However, I 
think we should consider re-spinning BCP 78 to add these provisions, 
or at least create a new self-standing document.  I don't want to see 
the IPR process documents ending up patchwork with no one able to 
figure out where to find the patches and how they fit together.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 5 Oct 2005 10:56

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

(I'm re-sending this because my previous attempt did not arrive...)

"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb <at> cs.columbia.edu> writes:

> Folks, draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt is the primary work item left 
> for this WG.  Is this a direction we want to go?  Is this the way to 
> get there?

The two problems I have identified earlier are still present in this
new version.  They prevent me from incorporating RFC material in my
free software products, both in manuals and in source code.

I get the feeling my issues have been ignored, but I will once again
attempt to explain my concerns.

The most important part is 1), but 2) is critical too.  Below I have
tried to focus on my interpretation of the current text, rather than
claiming some objective form of interpretation.  If my interpretation
is wrong somewhere, please tell me where it is flawed.

1) The text in RFC 3978 3.3(a) only grant rights explained in (A)-(E)
   to the IETF and ISOC only:

   a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
      protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
      Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
      he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
      perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
      right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Joel M. Halpern | 5 Oct 2005 13:30

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

I am personally uncomfortable with the notion that anyone can make versions 
of the RFCs that say anything they want.
I have no problems with folks incorporating the whole RFC, or portions of 
it that they need to make products.
and I have no right to gainsay anyone from writing a document that they 
distribute which says "While I like RfC X, my product implements 
modification Y..."
However, it is not clear to me that it is necessary to permit modification 
of the actual RFCs.
For example, if someone uses a MIB, it would be extremely BAD if they 
changed the definition of the objects using the assigned OIDs.
And while we can not prevent folks from creating confusion about what the 
RFC actually says, we can at least set up the rules to try to make it clear 
that the RFC is the RFC and not some modificaiton thereof.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what Simon Josefsson has asked for, but the 
above is what I thought I had heard, and my personal reaction.

Yours,
Joel

At 04:56 AM 10/5/2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>2) Now I assume that the text has been modified so that third parties
>    are granted the rights listed in (E).
>
>    The problem then is that the rights granted by the text is
>    insufficient for use in free software products.
>
>    The problem with the rights is that I, and my customers, are not
>    granted any rights to make modifications to the material.  I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 5 Oct 2005 14:05

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel <at> stevecrocker.com> writes:

> I am personally uncomfortable with the notion that anyone can make versions 
> of the RFCs that say anything they want.

People can already write a protocol spec to say whatever they want.

I understand and share your concern, but I believe there are better
ways to deal with the problem.  I think the belief that restricting
copying permissions of RFCs to fix the problem you are concerned with
is flawed.

If RFCs can't be modified, I may have to describe the protocol that my
products implement by writing a new protocol specification (assuming I
need to go into that kind of details in documentation, which isn't
entirely unlikely).  People who improve my product will update that
protocol specification to match the implementation.  Eventually,
sorting out the differences between the IETF published RFC and the
protocol my product implement will be difficult.

I claim it would be better if I would be able to copy parts of the RFC
into my manual, to describe the protocol I implement.  My customers
want the right to be able to modify all of my product, so they could
theoretically modify the part of the manual that was copied from the
RFC to say whatever they wanted.

I don't see a problem with my approach.

If the modifications are bad, people simply won't use it.  They can't
claim IETF supports their modification, they can't tell people to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Scott Bradner | 5 Oct 2005 14:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt


Simon sez:
  I get the feeling my issues have been ignored

your desire to have open source standards that anyone can modify 
is not being ignored but since that desire did not get general
support when it was discussed at the last ipr wg meeting that ability
was not included in this ID.

Simon further sez:
  The text suggest to me that IETF/ISOC has acquired
  the right to grant sublicenses.

"will acquire" (since this applies going forward, but basically correct

Simon ges on to say
   Third parties aren't even allowed to distribute un-modified RFCs
   from what I can tell. 

third parties have always had that right and nothing in this ID changes that

Scott
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Scott Bradner | 5 Oct 2005 14:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt


Simon sez in another message

  now I'm in the position where I find no
  legal text whatsoever from the IETF that permit me to use the RFCs in
  my products.  The current permissions only grant rights to the
  IETF/ISOC; not to me nor my customers.

that is a misunderstanding
1/ 3rd parties may republish RFCs any time they want
2/ 3rd parties may extract RFCs for inclusion in documentation, help 
   pages etc

but this ID (and current rules) do not say that someone can take a RFC, 
modify it and republish it unless its done within the IETF standards process
or unless the IETF has given speciifc permission to do so
(note, as was mentioned during the last discussio, it may not be
a bright line between publishing extracts linked together by new text
and publishing a modified RFC)

Pekka sez:
  In any case, the suggested revised section 3.3 (a) (C) does not
  specify who makes that case-by-case judgment/consensus call. That seems
  like an important detail which need to be specified.

I thought about that - I think its the IESG but can see cases where the
IAB might be the right body so wanted to leave it open until I 
saw some consensus - opinions?

Scott
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 5 Oct 2005 17:28

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

sob <at> harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) writes:

> Simon sez in another message
>
>   now I'm in the position where I find no
>   legal text whatsoever from the IETF that permit me to use the RFCs in
>   my products.  The current permissions only grant rights to the
>   IETF/ISOC; not to me nor my customers.
>
> that is a misunderstanding
> 1/ 3rd parties may republish RFCs any time they want
> 2/ 3rd parties may extract RFCs for inclusion in documentation, help 
>    pages etc

Again, please quote where BCP 78 give me these rights.  I believe it
does not give me these rights.

> but this ID (and current rules) do not say that someone can take a RFC, 
> modify it and republish it unless its done within the IETF standards process
> or unless the IETF has given speciifc permission to do so
> (note, as was mentioned during the last discussio, it may not be
> a bright line between publishing extracts linked together by new text
> and publishing a modified RFC)

True.  And free software typically need the rights to be able to
modify the included documentation and help pages.  That is why the
rights to be able to that should be granted to everyone by the IETF.

Thanks,
Simon
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
todd.glassey | 5 Oct 2005 21:32
Picon
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

Hey Scott - What happens to the submission or a published document when an IP complaint is submitted??? I.e.
someone formally informs the IETF that they have published controlled materials or that the person who
submitted the material did not have the rights to publish or assign any rights to the IETF on behalf of the
actual IP owner???

Generally speaking anyone who publishes something with as flimsy a release process as the IETF protects
itself by having a process for withdrawing from circulation, those materials published that are in
dispute. You havent... Seems to me that your document opens YOU PERSONALLY and the IETF to a lawsuit over
just this. 

So what does Jorge tell you formally about how materials need to be recallable from publication over IP
disputes? Or does he think that becuase the IETF is international that it is immune from damage claims
against it for gross stupidity?

Todd Glassey, 
Someone who does litigate over IP rights.

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Simon Josefsson <jas <at> extundo.com>
> sob <at> harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) writes:
> 
> > Simon sez in another message
> >
> >   now I'm in the position where I find no
> >   legal text whatsoever from the IETF that permit me to use the RFCs in
> >   my products.  The current permissions only grant rights to the
> >   IETF/ISOC; not to me nor my customers.
> >
> > that is a misunderstanding
> > 1/ 3rd parties may republish RFCs any time they want
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane