headers
Frank Ellermann | 3 Dec 19:32
Picon
Picon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> can you provide a proposal for text for 5.3 that creates the
> restrictions you want?

The first  proposal was s/in any way desired//
The second proposal was s/in any way desired/worldwide/

You're probably not asking for a link to "CC BY SA", and it
wouldn't help with say RFC 4643.   Any restriction compatible
with the rest of 5.3 (and anything else in the I-D) should be
possible.  Let the lawyers figure out how to get this right.

For I-D authors it should be (in normal cases, not RFC 4643)
as simple as adding ipr="full3978" in their XML source.  

There should be some simple choices like ipr="ietfbysa" for
those who don't like "in any way desired".  The "ietfby" is
ready as far as I can judge it (= not at all, IANAL), now it
only needs a simple alternative, and probably a procedure for
tricky cases like 4643 or MD5.

Frank
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 3 Dec 21:20
Picon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted


--On 3. desember 2006 19:32 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> can you provide a proposal for text for 5.3 that creates the
>> restrictions you want?
>
> The first  proposal was s/in any way desired//
> The second proposal was s/in any way desired/worldwide/

how do you see this as limiting the permissions granted to implementors?

I am very afraid of saying that "the IETF desires to grant the implementors 
permission to change the code, but there are limits to how we allow you to 
change it, and we're not going to tell you how the IETF desires to limit 
implementors' permission to make changes".

> You're probably not asking for a link to "CC BY SA", and it
> wouldn't help with say RFC 4643.   Any restriction compatible
> with the rest of 5.3 (and anything else in the I-D) should be
> possible.  Let the lawyers figure out how to get this right.
>
> For I-D authors it should be (in normal cases, not RFC 4643)
> as simple as adding ipr="full3978" in their XML source.
>
> There should be some simple choices like ipr="ietfbysa" for
> those who don't like "in any way desired".  The "ietfby" is
> ready as far as I can judge it (= not at all, IANAL), now it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 4 Dec 00:40
Picon
Picon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>> The first  proposal was s/in any way desired//
>> The second proposal was s/in any way desired/worldwide/

> how do you see this as limiting the permissions granted
> to implementors?

Without the "in any way desired" something like CC-BY-SA
(inbound) can be kept as is (outbound).  Probably it has
to be some IETF-BY-SA compatible with the spirit of 5.3
in the I-D, the real CC-BY-SA is apparently less liberal,
and besides it's apparently designed for music, not code.

> I am very afraid of saying that "the IETF desires to grant
> the implementors permission to change the code, but there
> are limits to how we allow you to change it, and we're not
> going to tell you how the IETF desires to limit
> implementors' permission to make changes".

The IETF desires 5.3, what some authors desire in addition
to that, like some kind of "share alike", is the issue.

It's no fun to read something like RFC 4648 chapter 11, at
some point in time the link might not work anymore.

>> The "ietfby" is ready as far as I can judge it (= not at
>> all, IANAL), now it only needs a simple alternative, and
>> probably a procedure for tricky cases like 4643 or MD5.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 4 Dec 01:04
Picon

Meeting minutes - 2nd version

Here are the minutes in ASCIIfied form, with some information from the 
on-screen notes interspersed.

Comments still welcome.

             Harald

Minutes of the IPR WG meeting, San Diego, 67th IETF, Monday, November 7, 
2006

Agenda:
15:20 Administrivia — Agenda bashing, etc. – 5 min
15:25 Outbound Rights — What rights the IETF grants others – 75 min
16:40 Milestones and Goals — What we're going to do and when, including a 
replacement for 3978 – 35 min
17:15 Wrapup, next steps
17:20 End

1: Administrivia — Agenda bashing, etc.
- No agenda bashing
- Elwyn Davies to take notes
- Scott Bradner (SOB) does jabber

2: Outbound Rights — What rights the IETF grants others
Harald Alvestrand (HA) presents:
- Considering draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-01
Chairs believe this represent consensus that group can agree on

Asking for issues to be raised against the documents.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 4 Dec 02:47
Picon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted


--On 4. desember 2006 00:40 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

>> This (mechanisms of specifying relevant rights granted to
>> the IETF, or authors' desire wrt what the IETF should grant
>> to implementors) is on the "incoming side" - later
>> discussion. But only relevant if we agreee that we desire
>> this restriction.
>
> You can't pass something on (outbound) if you never got it
> before (inbound).

We can always refuse to use something that comes to us, unless we are 
satistfied with the terms. We do that now with No-Derivative-Works 
documents; they can only be published for information, and cannot be part 
of a standard or a WG effort.
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 4 Dec 17:17
Picon
Favicon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 4. desember 2006 00:40 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
> <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
> 
>>> This (mechanisms of specifying relevant rights granted to
>>> the IETF, or authors' desire wrt what the IETF should grant
>>> to implementors) is on the "incoming side" - later
>>> discussion. But only relevant if we agreee that we desire
>>> this restriction.
>>
>>
>> You can't pass something on (outbound) if you never got it
>> before (inbound).
> 
> 
> We can always refuse to use something that comes to us, unless we are 
> satistfied with the terms. We do that now with No-Derivative-Works 
> documents; they can only be published for information, and cannot be 
> part of a standard or a WG effort.

Exactly. So we shouldn't get hung up on inbound rights beyond saying
that they must allow at least the internal and outbound rights that
we require; that can be formulated in detail later.

I still haven't seen a redraft of 5.3 in plain English.

    Brian
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 4 Dec 20:32
Picon
Picon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> We can always refuse to use something that comes to us,
> unless we are satistfied with the terms.

Yes.  Those terms have to allow reasonable protections
against abuse.

> We do that now with No-Derivative-Works documents; they
> can only be published for information, and cannot be
> part of a standard or a WG effort.

Okay, as far as the CC-model goes that reduces the issue
to CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, anything else like ND is out.  Two
inbound variants, and two corresponding outbound variants.

Both including the entire section 5.3 minus the last four
words as is.  Here's an attempt for the missing IETF-BY-SA:

| Draft authors or editors MAY state that substantial
| modifications based on the published code have to be
| "shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso.

Frank
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 4 Dec 20:51
Picon
Picon

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

>| Draft authors or editors MAY state that substantial
>| modifications based on the published code have to be
>| "shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso,
++ or contributed to the IETF.

Just in case, let them remove it if they offer it to the
IETF.  That way "IETF-BY-SA" even has an anti-viral exit.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joel M. Halpern | 4 Dec 20:56

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

I really don't like the idea of "authors may".  We need to figure out 
what we feel works for IETF RFCs.
I, for one, do not feel that IETF RFCs should ever require that folks 
who work with and modify the code should have to "share alike".  It 
has been clearly demonstrated that we need to permit modification of 
the code.  If we are going to permit modification, and we want a wide 
range of uses, we must not get into a situation where we make it 
difficult for a range of folks (corporate developers, for example) to 
actually use it.  Having dealt with corporations trying to live in 
good faith with "share alike" rules, it is a pain.

Look, I started with the view that we ought to only permit 
modifications needed to practice the standard.  After all, it is only 
interoperable implementations of the RFC that we REALLY need.  But 
Simon and others have made a series of points that have convinced me 
that we need to allow folks to do more than that.  Well, if we are 
going to allow that, then we need to allow it, not pretend to allow 
it, or allow it for only some develoeprs, or ...

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 02:32 PM 12/4/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > We can always refuse to use something that comes to us,
> > unless we are satistfied with the terms.
>
>Yes.  Those terms have to allow reasonable protections
>against abuse.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Don Armstrong | 4 Dec 23:30
Gravatar

Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Okay, as far as the CC-model goes that reduces the issue to CC-BY
> and CC-BY-SA, anything else like ND is out. Two inbound variants,
> and two corresponding outbound variants.

I thought I mentioned this earlier, but I'll do so again: The various
CC licenses have additional problems, in that they (often) don't allow
DRM even in parallel distribution, and as such are often in conflict
with the GPL (not to mention proprietary products.)

While they're useful discussion points to allow the WG to think about
the nature of inbound rights that the IETF requires, they should not
be used as a standard for a minimum grant because they impose
restrictions that are not desirable.

[As a final note, there are literally a few dozen CC licenses;
discussing them really requires more than just specifying CC-BY-SA.]

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a
large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee
 -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500)

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane