Question about IPR declaration - What can a I-D be used for?

I have a question - and that is what the scope of use for an I-D is.  i.e. 
can it be used as a technical reference for implementing a specification or 
not??? This is a VERY important question since it will constrain the entire 
IETF I-P Management process which I think is currently missing this 
differentiation.

So then let me ask, "if I-D's are not supposed to be public document's that 
people outside the IETF are to work on, then why is this IPR Statement in 
it?" And if they are what is the use of an IETF RFC?

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr <at> ietf.org.

The statement generally would require a technical review of the IP in the 
I-D itself and that would mean a direct expenditure of fee's in the form of 
hours of work to review and comment on it.

What I am saying is that there has been push back on I-D's being used as 
technical standards documents, but this text implies that this is OK to do 
since the I-P in the document is being prepared for public comment.

Unfortunately we don't get it both ways, either the document's are internal 
to the IETF only and so they are not, either they are capable of being used 
for production of the relying party's Protocol or Process Implementation or 
you cant... so which is it because the use license on them needs to be 
adjusted to directly reflect this.

Now this is an ipr license I like..

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/

===8<===
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby 
grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, 
royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent 
license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole 
or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation 
against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a 
lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification 
constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any 
patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this 
License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
===8<===

Does any community have a problem with these kind of IPR licensing 
terms?

--

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

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

[I don't really think this is on topic for the WG, so reply to me off
list if you require clarification; I won't respond on-list any
further.]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Does any community have a problem with these kind of IPR licensing
> terms?

This one of the less offensive forms of patent reciprocity out there;
there are some which are far more problematic as they cover things
which are not patents nor do they restrict themselves explicitely to
actions covering the patents in question.

Search for "patent reciprocity" if you want to know other published
opinions about it and other licenses which enact clauses like this.

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
Love is... a complex sequence of neurochemical reactions that makes
people behave like idiots. It's similar to intoxication, but the
hangover's even worse.
 -- J. Jacques _Questionable Content_ #1039
    http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1039

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

> [I don't really think this is on topic for the WG, so reply to me off
> list if you require clarification; I won't respond on-list any
> further.]
>
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> Does any community have a problem with these kind of IPR licensing
>> terms?
>
> This one of the less offensive forms of patent reciprocity out there;
> there are some which are far more problematic as they cover things
> which are not patents nor do they restrict themselves explicitely to
> actions covering the patents in question.
>
> Search for "patent reciprocity" if you want to know other published
> opinions about it and other licenses which enact clauses like this.

For one discussion, see the section 'Patent Reciprocity and Open
Standards':

http://www.rosenlaw.com/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf

There is more than meets the eye here, although I would agree that this
particular license have the nice property of being short and easy to
understand.

This license could be a candidate for use in
<http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto.html#anchor7>...

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

Pekka - this is an unworkable IPR License -What's wrong with this license is 
that it assumes that ALL of the genesis comes from within Google (or as 
posted here from within the IETF) and is covered by the IETF's license. 
Just painting a 'open and totally non-restrictive Use License' to any and 
all IP assumes that Google in this instance owns that IP and since it 
doesn't this license is meaningless in those cases.

For instance if the IETF is doing a project on IP that is also under 
commercial development outside the IETF then this license would be 
meaningless. If company "A" develops network protocol "YAYA" in their labs 
and the IETF is doing its own variant of "YAYA", then who's license is the 
real one. The company who is privately working on the IP or the IETF? - the 
IETF would own its own genesis, but since there was other sources of 
genesis...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas <at> netcore.fi>
To: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: Now this is an ipr license I like..

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/
>
> ===8<===
> Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby
> grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
> royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent
> license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

How does that differ from an RFC 1988 license, or the kinds of  
licenses currently described in the IPR WG?

On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/
>
> ===8<===
> Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby
> grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
> royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent
> license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole
> or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation
> against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
> lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification
> constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any
> patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this
> License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
> ===8<===
>
> Does any community have a problem with these kind of IPR licensing
> terms?
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Fred Baker wrote:
> How does that differ from an RFC 1988 license, or the kinds of licenses 
> currently described in the IPR WG?

In a number of fundamental ways, such as:
  - RFC1988 grant applies only to the specific IETF standards track 
activity (the license specifically restricts incorporating the work in 
proprietary modules)
  - RFC1988 license terminates only if someone asserts against HP, 
instead of asserts against anyone
  - The scope of required reciprocity is wider than the specification 
in question ("search address technology") which may allow HP to abuse 
the license by using some other organizations restricted IPR in the 
area of 'search address technology', daring them to sue.

--

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

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

Pekka Savola <pekkas <at> netcore.fi> writes:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Fred Baker wrote:
>> How does that differ from an RFC 1988 license, or the kinds of licenses 
>> currently described in the IPR WG?
>
> In a number of fundamental ways, such as:
>   - RFC1988 grant applies only to the specific IETF standards track 
> activity (the license specifically restricts incorporating the work in 
> proprietary modules)
>   - RFC1988 license terminates only if someone asserts against HP, 
> instead of asserts against anyone
>   - The scope of required reciprocity is wider than the specification 
> in question ("search address technology") which may allow HP to abuse 
> the license by using some other organizations restricted IPR in the 
> area of 'search address technology', daring them to sue.

Further:
 - RFC1988 grants rights to specific patents, which in general may not
have been all the patents related that particular technology owned by
the patent holder.

I brought up for discussion whether Google's patent license may be free
software compatible on the FSF Europe discussion list, see
<http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2008-April/thread.html>.
If it doesn't seem entirely unacceptable, I'll mention it in
draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto as one example of a patent license
that companies can use if they want to make their IETF standard free
software compatible.

Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

Yo Fred -

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <fred <at> cisco.com>
To: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas <at> netcore.fi>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

> How does that differ from an RFC 1988 license, or the kinds of
> licenses currently described in the IPR WG?
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/
>>
>> ===8<===
>> Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby
>> grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
>> royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent
>> license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole
>> or in part) of this specification.

This license speaks to derivative IP and patent specifics. Bluntly what this 
says is that "if you sue someone over your damages for using this IP the 
license to use the IP is revoked" but since there is NO WAY to revoke an 
IETF license that wont work here.

Unfortunately the IETF's "Any and All uses" ALSO means that the IP can be 

Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

Colleagues,

The IAB discussed the IPR documents during its most recent call. It  
unanimously decided that the IAB-stream is to be covered by the  
incoming IPR document.  It is our understanding that the iab-stream  
documents IPR are then automatically covered by the outbounds rights  
that the IETF trust will establish based on the advice in draft-ietf- 
ipr-outbound rights.

We also want to stress that for any change in the inbound rights for  
streams other than the ietf- and iab-stream there needs to be a stream  
dependent discussion and approval process as indicated in RFC 4844  
"The RFC Series and RFC Editor"  section 4.2.3.

To that extent section 4 of the draft should explicitly mention that  
the irtf-, the independent- and any possible future streams are not  
covered by the draft.

For the IAB,

Olaf Kolkman

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf