headers
Harald Alvestrand | 3 Oct 2007 08:47
Picon

-Incoming issues in need of resolution


Greetings,
in the process of preparing the next version of -incoming, incorporating
the list-confirmed decisions of the Chicago WG meeting, a couple of
issues have been brought to light.

One concerns the granting of a license to the author to use the text
submitted for an RFC in other work - referred to in Chicago discussions
by the label of "SPARC addendum".

Two approaches have been suggested:

1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:

> 5.10. Contributors retention of rights
> .br
> Notwithstanding any terms in this document to the contrary, in addition
> to any rights under copyright retained by Contributor and in addition to
> any rights generally granted by the TETF trust, Contributor retains, and
> grants to each Co-Contributor to an RFC in which such Contributor's
> Contribution, or a derivative work thereof may appear, the right:  .in +3
> .ti -3
> (A) to copy, publish, display, and distribute any RFC that includes the
> Contribution, in whole or in part, .ti -3
> (B) to prepare translations of such RFC into languages other than
> English, in whole or in part, and to copy, publish, display, and
> distribute such translations or portions thereof, and .ti -3
> (C) to reproduce any trademarks, service marks or trade names which are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 752 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 3 Oct 2007 12:36
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

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

> 1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
> same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:

That seems to be an OK approach.  I support that it should be very clear
for IETF contributors that they retain the copyright of their
submission.  To make that as clear as possible, making that explicit in
-incoming seems like a good idea.

Although the devil is in the details, specifically:

>
>> 5.10. Contributors retention of rights
>> .br
>> Notwithstanding any terms in this document to the contrary, in addition
>> to any rights under copyright retained by Contributor and in addition to
>> any rights generally granted by the TETF trust, Contributor retains, and
>> grants to each Co-Contributor to an RFC in which such Contributor's
>> Contribution, or a derivative work thereof may appear, the right:

Ouch!  This goes way beyond "author retains their rights", it grants
co-authors some rights to other co-authors' contributions.

More importantly, the text does not explain that authors retains the
copyright in their contribution.  That is the most important thing to
describe in -incoming.

The text would introduces a further legal class of parties with
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 3 Oct 2007 15:54
Picon

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution


--On 3. oktober 2007 12:36 +0200 Simon Josefsson <simon <at> josefsson.org> 
wrote:

> Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> 1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
>> same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
>> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:
>
> That seems to be an OK approach.  I support that it should be very clear
> for IETF contributors that they retain the copyright of their
> submission.  To make that as clear as possible, making that explicit in
> -incoming seems like a good idea.
>
> Although the devil is in the details, specifically:
>
>>
>>> 5.10. Contributors retention of rights
>>> .br
>>> Notwithstanding any terms in this document to the contrary, in addition
>>> to any rights under copyright retained by Contributor and in addition to
>>> any rights generally granted by the TETF trust, Contributor retains, and
>>> grants to each Co-Contributor to an RFC in which such Contributor's
>>> Contribution, or a derivative work thereof may appear, the right:
>
> Ouch!  This goes way beyond "author retains their rights", it grants
> co-authors some rights to other co-authors' contributions.
>
> More importantly, the text does not explain that authors retains the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 3 Oct 2007 16:06
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

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

> The rights granted in this proposed text are, BTW, identical to those
> that the IETF grants to all readers in -outgoing

The rights are the same, but the recipient of the rights is different.
The proposed text would give co-authors rights via -incoming.
Introducing co-authors as a different class of contributor seems like a
new idea, and I think it is a bad idea since it causes complexity.

> the difference is that since these form part of the rules under which
> the submitters licensed their contribution, it would be impossible to
> restrict those rights at a later stage. Not that I think there's any
> chance of such a restriction being imposed.

Then why is there a push to add this to -incoming at all?

/Simon
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 3 Oct 2007 16:13
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

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

> The rights granted in this proposed text are, BTW, identical to those
> that the IETF grants to all readers in -outgoing

I noticed that this is incorrect, -outgoing does not contain anything
like the proposed text, as far as I can see.

/Simon
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 3 Oct 2007 16:31
Picon
Favicon

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

Harald
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <simon <at> josefsson.org>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

>
>
> --On 3. oktober 2007 12:36 +0200 Simon Josefsson <simon <at> josefsson.org> 
> wrote:
>
>> Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>>
>>> 1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
>>> same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
>>> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:
>>
>> That seems to be an OK approach.  I support that it should be very clear
>> for IETF contributors that they

Or those people they represent...

>> retain the copyright of their
>> submission.

There is another PROBLEM with the current submission model. That is that if 
someone writing is a sponsored writer, they MUST also list the Legal 
Counsel's CONTACT INFO for the SPONSOR so that any and all relying parties
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
TS Glassey | 3 Oct 2007 16:27
Picon
Favicon

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

Again - what do you do about technology that is being written about, but 
that is not owned by those submitting the IP for vetting to the IETF?

The problem with the current submission model is that doesnt mandate that 
any and aall IP's submitted must be legally the property of the Submitters 
or that the submitters actually MUST own or control rights to. Or be 
formally authorized by their Sponsor to submit materials on behalf of the 
Sponsor under Work for Hire docterine here in the US,

Todd Glassey.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <simon <at> josefsson.org>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

> Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> 1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
>> same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
>> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:
>
> That seems to be an OK approach.  I support that it should be very clear
> for IETF contributors that they retain the copyright of their
> submission.  To make that as clear as possible, making that explicit in
> -incoming seems like a good idea.
>
> Although the devil is in the details, specifically:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 3 Oct 2007 16:38
Picon
Favicon

Spelling error - Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

Damn spell checker - sorry - I meant "as" and not "ass" - my apologies.

T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TS Glassey" <tglassey <at> earthlink.net>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>; "Simon Josefsson" 
<simon <at> josefsson.org>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

> Harald
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
> To: "Simon Josefsson" <simon <at> josefsson.org>
> Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:54 AM
> Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution
>
>
>>
>>
>> --On 3. oktober 2007 12:36 +0200 Simon Josefsson <simon <at> josefsson.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>>>
>>>> 1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially 
>>>> the
>>>> same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 3 Oct 2007 22:48
Picon

Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

My opinions:

On 2007-10-03 19:47, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> 
> Two approaches have been suggested:
> 
> 1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
> same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:

I think this gets us back into the quagmire of trying
to draft precise legal text to be frozen in a BCP. I believe
it's much wiser to state the intent to give authors and
contributors adequate rights to use their own material,
and leave the Trust to define *and* maintain the appropriate
legal text. Therefore,

> 2) Granting a special license to produce derivative works from the text
> of the finished RFC, subject only to the limitation that the result
> can't be presented as if it was an RFC.

I prefer this, with the Trust being enjoined to maintain
the principle that the RFC Editor is an agent of the authors
and of the community.

<snip>

> 
> The other issue, raised by Jorge Contreras, concerns the split of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 751 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 7 Oct 2007 17:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: Incoming - software licenses

Harald - its really good to see you echoing my words finally. I should have 
sent this out a month ago but just found it in my DRAFTS folder and since it 
pertains to the IP rights of an Entity who is sponsoring people in the IETF 
its relevant.

The problem is that there is an issue with submitting anything to the IETF 
for vetting by SPONSORED ENGINEERING STAFF that is 'assigned to the IETF to 
work on the Entity's Effort's therein'.

Simply said, the SPONSORS own the WORK PRODUCT their Sponsoree's work on, 
and also get the privilege of determining what their SPONSOREE's work on. 
That is a key flaw in the current work-flow model. It assumes and insists 
that the SPONSOREE themselves control their actions within the IETF and that 
simply is not true.

That said, because the SPONSORING ENTITY does retain ownership of the IP 
until there is something between them and the IETF itself acknowledging that 
the SPONSOREE holds those abilities themselves. Otherwise their are owned 
lock, stock, and barrel, and the SPONSOREE doesnt have the legal authority 
to assing any of the SPONSORING ENTITY's IP Rights to the IETF or the IETF 
Trust no matter what the IPR WG says they do.

As such,  the IETF has a responsibility to force any and all submssions to 
disclose any and all IP Rights so that relying party's are informed as to 
what they are investing assets (the time of their Sponsoree's) w... but 
there is a problem with the IETF's disclosure model and that is that the 
model may make the IETF a formal part of a fraud by Wire which could be a 
criminal matter in my estimation.

I suggest you review the inline comments below.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane