Re: agenda uploaded

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> I've uploaded the agenda for San Diego. The two non-trivial items:
> agreeing on the outbound rights question, and setting the goals for the
> 3978 rewrite.
>
> 		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>   
The agenda is at <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/agenda/ipr.html>

               Harald

Re: WG Last Call on draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00.txt

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Per my note of two weeks ago, this is a formal WG Last Call on
> draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00.txt.  Given the nature of the
> document, I'm making this a one-week Last Call.
Given that one week has passed with several supporting voices and no 
issues raised against the document, the chairs are declaring that this 
document represents the consensus of the WG, and will ship it to the 
IESG for Last Call and approval.

                   Harald

draft IPR-WG minutes from 7 Nov 2006

These are draft minutes from the IPR-WG meeting in San Diego.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

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

WG meeting decisions for confirmation on the list

During the IPR WG's meeting in San Diego, the following proposed consensus 
calls were made. The disposition is noted below.

As is written in IETF procedure, these consensus calls have to be confirmed 
on the mailing list; I am hereby asking you for such confirmation.

In the tradition of "don't make more work than necessary", we'd like to 
make two passes at this:

- If someone believes that a consensus stated in this list does not 
represent a consensus of the working group, please state so to the list in 
a note with the subject line "DISCUSS:" and the name of the issue. If two 
people agree that an item needs discussion, the issue will be open for 
discussion on the list. We may also assign it an issue number in the 
tracker.

- If we have issues that prove to need discussion, we will make a separate 
consensus call in email for each issue as needed. For issues where there 
haven't been two people stating that we need discussion, we will conclude 
that the mailing list agrees with the consensus of the physical working 
group meeting.

Note that this is not a call on the text of the current draft. That will be 
done separately, after the draft has been updated according to these 
consensus calls.

BIG ISSUES CALLED, OUTBOUND:

1) Rights normally granted: Cite all, translate all, change code
For: 12, Against: 0: Confused: 1

CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Excerpts from Harald Alvestrand on Mon, Nov 20, 2006 05:30:54AM +0100:
> - If someone believes that a consensus stated in this list does not 
> represent a consensus of the working group, please state so to the list in 
> a note with the subject line "DISCUSS:" and the name of the issue. If two 
> people agree that an item needs discussion, the issue will be open for 
> discussion on the list. We may also assign it an issue number in the 
> tracker.

Clarification comes before discussion ...

> 5) Language about copyright notices
> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to 
> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may be 
> license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.

How does this interact with rfc3978 section 5.2 (derivative works
limitation in status)?  

swb

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

--On 20. november 2006 04:42 -0500 Scott W Brim <sbrim <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Harald Alvestrand on Mon, Nov 20, 2006 05:30:54AM +0100:
>> - If someone believes that a consensus stated in this list does not
>> represent a consensus of the working group, please state so to the list
>> in  a note with the subject line "DISCUSS:" and the name of the issue.
>> If two  people agree that an item needs discussion, the issue will be
>> open for  discussion on the list. We may also assign it an issue number
>> in the  tracker.
>
> Clarification comes before discussion ...
>
>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may be
>> license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.
>
> How does this interact with rfc3978 section 5.2 (derivative works
> limitation in status)?

This was in the minutes, but perhaps not too clear.

In a separate item: the WG thinks that NDW documents are useful, and should 
continue to be possible; the outgoing rights can't be bigger than the 
incoming rights. Details to be worked out... but if the NDW clause 
restricts outgoing rights, that's clearly a desired outcome.

              Harald

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 20. november 2006 04:42 -0500 Scott W Brim <sbrim <at> cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Excerpts from Harald Alvestrand on Mon, Nov 20, 2006 05:30:54AM +0100:
>>
>>> - If someone believes that a consensus stated in this list does not
>>> represent a consensus of the working group, please state so to the list
>>> in  a note with the subject line "DISCUSS:" and the name of the issue.
>>> If two  people agree that an item needs discussion, the issue will be
>>> open for  discussion on the list. We may also assign it an issue number
>>> in the  tracker.
>>
>>
>> Clarification comes before discussion ...
>>
>>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may be
>>> license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.
>>
>>
>> How does this interact with rfc3978 section 5.2 (derivative works
>> limitation in status)?
> 
> 
> This was in the minutes, but perhaps not too clear.
> 
> In a separate item: the WG thinks that NDW documents are useful, and 

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Then you limit the IETF to only using IP that it controls and that is
blatantly silly Brian.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>; "Scott W Brim" <sbrim <at> cisco.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> >
> > --On 20. november 2006 04:42 -0500 Scott W Brim <sbrim <at> cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Excerpts from Harald Alvestrand on Mon, Nov 20, 2006 05:30:54AM +0100:
> >>
> >>> - If someone believes that a consensus stated in this list does not
> >>> represent a consensus of the working group, please state so to the
list
> >>> in  a note with the subject line "DISCUSS:" and the name of the issue.
> >>> If two  people agree that an item needs discussion, the issue will be
> >>> open for  discussion on the list. We may also assign it an issue
number
> >>> in the  tracker.
> >>
> >>
> >> Clarification comes before discussion ...

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Scott W Brim wrote:

> Clarification comes before discussion ...

>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may
>> be license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.

The "NDW is evil" side is clear, but could an author use CC-BY-SA ?  

I vaguely recall that John was also interested in CC-BY-ND, but maybe I
confuse that with something else he wrote here months ago.

Frank

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

--On 20. november 2006 17:20 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> Scott W Brim wrote:
>
>> Clarification comes before discussion ...
>
>>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may
>>> be license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.
>
> The "NDW is evil" side is clear, but could an author use CC-BY-SA ?
>
> I vaguely recall that John was also interested in CC-BY-ND, but maybe I
> confuse that with something else he wrote here months ago.

It's clear (at least it was stated again in San Diego, and nobody 
disagreed) that an author can make a separate copy of his (sole) 
contribution and license that under another license (such as GPL, CC-BY-SA 
or CC-BY-ND) if he wants to, in addition to the copy he licenses to the 
IETF under IETF rules.

Comparing the specific terms of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND to the desired 
properties of the licensing to or from the IETF to the community is a 
matter for lawyers - which we are leaving out of this draft text.

                      Harald