headers
Bill Fenner | 1 Aug 01:17
Favicon

Boilerplate text

I'm trying to apply the boilerplate text to a 1id-guidelines update.
Was the word "the" left off between the copyright year and "IETF
Trust" on purpose?  i.e., is "Copyright 2008 IETF Trust and Bill
Fenner.  All rights reserved." the intended usage?

Here is a new section 3 for 1id-guidelines:

3.  IPR-Related Notices Required in Internet-Drafts

   All Internet-Drafts must have the following intellectual property
   rights (IPR) and copyright statements on the first page:

   "This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF pursuant to, and in full
   conformance with, the provisions of BCP 79.

   Copyright [year] IETF Trust and [the listed authors].  All rights
   reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

   (See Trust Guidance [TrustGuidance] section 6a. and 6c.)

   [year] in the copyright statement should be replaced by the year of
   publication of the document, and [the listed authors] should be
   replaced by the authors of the document.  Normal english list form
   should be used, e.g., "IETF Trust and A. Nonymous" but "IETF Trust,
   J. Blow and T. Rex".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 1 Aug 02:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Boilerplate text


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Fenner" <fenner <at> fenron.com>
To: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: Boilerplate text

> I'm trying to apply the boilerplate text to a 1id-guidelines update.
> Was the word "the" left off between the copyright year and "IETF
> Trust" on purpose?  i.e., is "Copyright 2008 IETF Trust and Bill
> Fenner.  All rights reserved." the intended usage?
>
> Here is a new section 3 for 1id-guidelines:
>
> 3.  IPR-Related Notices Required in Internet-Drafts
>
>   All Internet-Drafts must have the following intellectual property
>   rights (IPR) and copyright statements on the first page:

This isnt something that should be in an Internet Draft... The Draft doesnt 
need to have anything in it about the terms and conditions it was subitted 
to the IETF under if there is only one set of terms for that submission that 
are being accepted now.

The ONLY thing the I-D needs in it is the outgoing license and anything else 
creates a new set of liabilities and responsibilities of the IETF. Ones that 
even IPR's words on paper cannot make go away.

That said the I-D itself should not be a part of the contract for submission 
of the IP that the I-D contains. Only a neophyte contract's person would
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephan Wenger | 1 Aug 09:14
Gravatar

Re: Boilerplate text

Hi all.

Personally, I don't care about the presence/absence of "the" in this
context.

I have another issue, and that relates to citing the author's names in the
copyright statement.  At this point, we have a restriction of a maximum of
five co-authors on an I-D/RFC (there may be a few exceptions).  Assume two
documents with four co-authors are to be merged, which frequently happens in
practice.  I believe it would be fair to say that we have now eight
co-authors, jointly owning the work, and each with the right to grant rights
to the whole work (at least according to my understanding of the joint
copyright doctrine in the US).

Today's normal IETF practice would be to assign a single editor (which would
be the only person on the author's list), and mention the (other) previous
co-authors somewhere in the "contributors" list, or in an acknowledgement
paragraph, or somewhere thereabouts.

Now further assume that the editor (sole author listed on page 1) is not
willing to grant rights on his own (beyond the boilerplate rights), whereas
one of the original eight authors is perfectly willing to do so.  Does that
get us in a situation where our procedures limit the rights of that one
original co-author, as his name is not listed in the copyright statement?
If yes, is this going to be a problem in practice?

Personally, I fear the answer is "yes" to both questions.

If it is, the safest solution seems to me to remove the restriction to the
number of co-authors.  Another solution may be that the folks writing the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
TS Glassey | 1 Aug 16:35
Picon
Favicon

Re: Boilerplate text


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephan Wenger" <stewe <at> stewe.org>
To: "Bill Fenner" <fenner <at> fenron.com>; <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Boilerplate text

> Hi all.
>
> Personally, I don't care about the presence/absence of "the" in this
> context.
>
> I have another issue, and that relates to citing the author's names in the
> copyright statement.  At this point, we have a restriction of a maximum of
> five co-authors on an I-D/RFC (there may be a few exceptions).  Assume two
> documents with four co-authors are to be merged, which frequently happens 
> in
> practice.  I believe it would be fair to say that we have now eight
> co-authors, jointly owning the work, and each with the right to grant 
> rights
> to the whole work (at least according to my understanding of the joint
> copyright doctrine in the US).

Yes.

>
> Today's normal IETF practice would be to assign a single editor (which 
> would
> be the only person on the author's list), and mention the (other) previous
> co-authors somewhere in the "contributors" list, or in an acknowledgement
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 1 Aug 17:09
Picon
Favicon

Suspension Processes require Notice when a Suspension is Lifted.

Folks -
when the IETF lifts a Suspension just doing it and neglecting to announce 
that the individual who was suspended is an act which can only be reviewed 
as 'an attempt by the WG Chair to keep that person off that list' and in 
doing so, and one would think that this opens the Sponsor's and the IETF 
itself to more pain.

Otherwise the abuse that was the unjust suspension isnt acknowledged and is 
allowed to continue to do its damage to the suspended party by forcing them 
to continue to test their posting rights again and again...

In summary, if the IETF notices the party who is suspended when posting 
rights are removed then they MUST notice as well when the rights are 
restored. Nothing else is ethical or reasonable...

Also when an appeal is acted on, someone needs to say something to the 
person who filed that appeal. Right? - so who is that and when is it said?

We need both of these flow-issues addressed in that process.

---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Aug 18:42
Picon
Picon

Re: Suspension Processes require Notice when a Suspension is Lifted.

TS Glassey wrote: [...]

Trying to follow 64kbps audio over a V.90 line with 
a tool claiming to be a "media player" is a rather
interesting exercise, but I'm pretty sure that this
WG won't start to work on 3934bis.  

Post an individual draft if something in RFC 3934
isn't as it should be, and discuss this elsewhere.

 Frank
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 3 Aug 19:13
Picon

Re: Suspension Processes require Notice when a Suspension is Lifted.

It seems that somehow my suspension of mr. Glassey's posting privilleges 
wasn't effective. Now trying again.

TS Glassey wrote:
> Folks -
> when the IETF lifts a Suspension just doing it and neglecting to 
> announce that the individual who was suspended is an act which can 
> only be reviewed as 'an attempt by the WG Chair to keep that person 
> off that list' and in doing so, and one would think that this opens 
> the Sponsor's and the IETF itself to more pain.
>
> Otherwise the abuse that was the unjust suspension isnt acknowledged 
> and is allowed to continue to do its damage to the suspended party by 
> forcing them to continue to test their posting rights again and again...
>
> In summary, if the IETF notices the party who is suspended when 
> posting rights are removed then they MUST notice as well when the 
> rights are restored. Nothing else is ethical or reasonable...
>
> Also when an appeal is acted on, someone needs to say something to the 
> person who filed that appeal. Right? - so who is that and when is it 
> said?
>
> We need both of these flow-issues addressed in that process.
>
>
> ---
> Personal Disclaimers Apply
>
> TS Glassey
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 6 Aug 13:59
Picon

IPR Minutes from IETF 72

The minutes from IETF 72 have been uploaded to the meeting materials 
server, and are visible on

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/ipr.txt

Please email any corrections to me, or, if they warrant discussion, to 
the list.
Thank very much to Mirjam Kuehne for taking these minutes!

                          Harald
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 6 Aug 15:45
Picon

Re: IPR Minutes from IETF 72

Thanks to a quick proofreading by Frank Ellermann, the minutes are now 
updated to version 1.1.

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The minutes from IETF 72 have been uploaded to the meeting materials 
> server, and are visible on
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/ipr.txt
>
> Please email any corrections to me, or, if they warrant discussion, to 
> the list.
> Thank very much to Mirjam Kuehne for taking these minutes!
>
>                          Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ed Juskevicius | 11 Aug 05:58
Favicon

Last Call for Comments on " Legal Provisions Related to IETF Documents"

This is to announce that the IETF Trustees have just
posted a revised version of a draft policy on 
"Legal Provisions Related to IETF Documents" dated
08-05-08 at:
http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html

This draft includes all of the changes agreed during
the July 31st meeting of the IPR working group held
in Dublin.

On behalf of the IETF Trustees, we invite your
review and final comments and suggestions on this
policy.  

The IETF Trustees will meet via telechat on Aug 21st
with the goal of finalizing this policy.  If you
have any final comments, please post them on the
IPR WG mailing list.  

Best Regards, and Thanks in advance, 

Ed Juskevicius      Ray Pelletier
Chair               Trustee
IETF Trust          IETF Administrative Director
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane