headers
Harald Alvestrand | 2 Sep 15:33
Picon

End of suspension period for Todd Glassey

FYI:

The suspension period for Todd Glassey expired a few days ago.

If repeated instances of the behaviour for which he was suspended 
re-occur, and you feel the need to comment, please drop me a line; 
replying on-list to off-topic postings is not recommended.

                Harald
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 3 Sep 23:30
Picon
Favicon

New Topic: US Law/Precedent on Spoliation of Data

Guys - with regard to the IP Laws in the US there is this thing called 
spoliation and it pertains to NoteWell and how NoteWell content is 
administered herein.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/sanctions0815.pdf

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is necessary I will leave it 
to your discretion since the fee rulings in a production matter would likely 
rest with the IETF and our sponsor's. Personally I think this means that to 
insure proper management that NO external resources can be relied on and 
that may mean IETF libraries.

It also means that I would suggest adding some digitally signed bar-code to 
the cover of the I-D or the RFC or STD or BCP identifying it. But that's 
just my two cents.

Todd
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Sep 17:00
Picon

Re: New Topic: US Law/Precedent on Spoliation of Data

Todd,

you have failed to show evidence that competent legal counsel (not you) 
has looked at this document, looked at the IETF's procedures, and thinks 
that this ruling (which involves the destruction and non-production of 
court-requested evidence subsequent to a case being brought to court) is 
relevant to the IETF.

Until such evidence is brought, this will not be an IPR WG issue.

(For those who did not know - the IETF's procedures for responding to 
subpoenas is available online at http://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoena.html)

                   Harald

TS Glassey skrev:
> Guys - with regard to the IP Laws in the US there is this thing called 
> spoliation and it pertains to NoteWell and how NoteWell content is 
> administered herein.
>
> http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/sanctions0815.pdf
>
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is necessary I will leave it 
> to your discretion since the fee rulings in a production matter would likely 
> rest with the IETF and our sponsor's. Personally I think this means that to 
> insure proper management that NO external resources can be relied on and 
> that may mean IETF libraries.
>
> It also means that I would suggest adding some digitally signed bar-code to 
> the cover of the I-D or the RFC or STD or BCP identifying it. But that's
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
TS Glassey | 4 Sep 17:31
Picon
Favicon

Re: New Topic: US Law/Precedent on Spoliation of Data

Harald -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey <at> earthlink.net>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: New Topic: US Law/Precedent on Spoliation of Data

> Todd,
>
> you have failed to show evidence that competent legal counsel (not you)
> has looked at this document, looked at the IETF's procedures, and thinks
> that this ruling (which involves the destruction and non-production of
> court-requested evidence subsequent to a case being brought to court) is
> relevant to the IETF.

No Harald - I havent failed to do that - you personally and others within 
the IESG have tried to discredit myself and others who looked at these 
precedents and then made commentary.

You have asserted that this document means something other than what I 
represented it as. Since you personally are running a group who is crafting 
formal legal agreements for the IETF, if you do not understand the text of 
this document then you are NOT competent to perform that role and need to be 
formally removed from the IETF until such time as you can read english.

If you find this offensive think of how offensive I find your continual 
effort to prevent the IETF and your own culpability for your actions herein.

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephan Wenger | 4 Sep 20:11
Gravatar

Mr. Glassey's recent postings

Hi all,
It¹s part of my job to read, attempt to understand, and, if necessary, act
on postings on ipr-wg <at> ietf.org.  I do not have the luxury to remove postings of
certain individuals, including Mr. Glassey¹s postings, through technical
means---even if I would wish to do so.
I think it¹s acceptable to check with the IPR WG whether a certain ruling
may be relevant.  However, I¹m troubled that the majority of these requests
for a check appear to originate from the same source, and that the vast
majority, if not all of them, have been dismissed quickly by the community
(or by the chair, with no objection by the community).  This time, the chair
suggested that Mr. Glassey submits an attorney¹s opinion on the subject,
which seems to me an entirely reasonable way forward, considering the
history of Mr. Glassey¹s mailing list activities.  Mr. Glassey¹s reply has
been taken the character of a direct personal attack against Harald.  That I
find unacceptable, and certainly disruptive.  I therefore request the chair
to consider yet another removal of Mr. Glassey¹s posting privileges, for as
long a period as possible under the relevant RFCs.
Best regards,
Stephan Wenger
P.s.: For the record, I personally believe that the case Mr. Glassey has
pointed us to has no relevance to the IETF. 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephan Wenger | 4 Sep 23:51
Gravatar

Re: Mr. Glassey's recent postings

Dear Mr. Anderson,

My opinion re your first and second points are known, and I'm not going to
re-iterate them.  But please allow me to address points 3 to 5, which can be
viewed as a personal, direct, and ill-informed attack against myself.

As your third point, you must have an old copy of my private web page in
your cache.  My web page was last updated in early June 2008, and I moved
servers sometimes in mid July 2008; perhaps that helps to debug your caching
problem.

As clearly indicated in the first sentence of my private home page, I do
work in Nokia's IPR department.  Let me also assure you that my
responsibilities include patent policy work in the IETF.  Feel free to
verify that through whatever channel you have available.

Regarding point four, please see the description of my responsibilities
above.  I do know how to configure an email client, but my interpretation of
my responsibilities require me to at least attempt to read all emails on
ipr-wg <at> ietf.org, including disruptive, off-topic, and sometime plain stupid
ones.

And with point five, I disagree with your interpretation.  So, I strongly
believe, will most reasonable people do.

Regards,
Stephan Wenger

On 9/4/08 2:09 PM, "Dean Anderson" <dean <at> av8.com> wrote:

> First, in my opinion, all of Mr.  Glassey's posting have been on-topic,
> and have been prima facie valid---even where I disagree with Mr.
> Glassey, his messages make prima facie valid and on-topic arguments;
> Mr. Glassey's messages are usually well-cited issues regarding patents,
> trademarks and copyrights relating to the work of the IPR-WG.  The
> recent message from Mr. Glassey on spoliation of evidence is likewise
> well-cited with authoritative legal references (US Federal District
> Court Order). This order is relevant since it explains the law on
> spoliation of evidence.  The order states (inter alia): (page 3)
> 
>    A party engages in willful spoliation if the party has "some notice
>    that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before
>    they were destroyed." United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314
>    F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002).
> 
> The IETF has recently discussed making alterations of IETF IPR
> disclosures. IETF IPR Disclosure documents are anticipated to be
> potentially relevant to litigation over the licensing terms granted by
> patent and copyright owners.  Because the IETF 'has some notice',
> spoliation therefore applies to the IETF IPR disclosures, and the topic
> is relevant to discussion on IPR-WG.
> 
> Second, the personal attacks have been launched by Alvestrand, who has a
> history of misrepresention and of launching emotional appeals against
> positions he doesn't like and a history of abusing his powers as Chair
> to silence opinions he doesn't like; the intent and result of which
> deceives the Working Group and the public and defrauds participants of
> their right to participate in a democratic process.  In this case, Mr.
> Glassey has just defended himself against the personal attack and the
> misrepresation by Alvestrand.  The condition stated by Alvestrand,
> opinion of counsel, are not required to post this information to
> ipr-wg <at> ietf.org.  Mr. Alvestrand's opinion that (only) Mr. Glassey
> cannot post authoritative legal references to ipr-wg are a personal
> attack on Mr. Glassey, and an attempt to improperly increase Mr.
> Glassey's legal expenses.  Mr. Alvestrand also misrepresents the
> authority of the legal reference cited by Mr Glassey:  The written order
> of a Federal Court is not subject to the opinion of a lawyer before it
> becomes valid law.  The attempt by Mr. Alvestrand to deceive the Working
> Group about the law regarding spoliation of evidence is improper.
> 
> Third, According to http://www.stewe.org/ Dr. Wenger does not appear to
> be employed in the IPR department at Nokia. So his statement that "It's
> part of my job to read [...] postings on ipr-wg <at> ietf.org" does not
> appear to be accurate.  I will however contact Nokia personnel
> department to confirm this fact if Dr. Wenger insists that his job
> requires him to read every message on IPR-WG regardless of who posts the
> message.
> 
> Forth, Dr. Wenger's claim that "I do not have the luxury to remove
> postings of certain individuals" also appears to be a deception.
> According to headers in a message posted on August 1, 2008, Dr. Wenger
> uses an email client identfied by a User-Agent header called
> "Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522"  This email client gives Dr. Wenger
> the ability to delete and filter email, contrary to Dr. Wenger's claims.
> However, Dr. Wenger's email client abilities do not appear to be
> relevant to the complaint.  Even if it were the case that his email
> client couldn't delete or filter messages, that is Dr. Wenger's problem.
> However, Dr. Wenger's deception here shows bad faith.
> 
> Fifth, Dr. Wenger's assertions in a message to ipr-wg dated August 1,
> 2008 were disputed by Mr.  Glassey. So Dr. Wenger is a partisan in an
> argument in which Wenger and Glassey are on differing sides. Therefore
> Dr. Wenger has an undisclosed conflict of interest in making a complaint
> against his opponent. The undisclosed conflict of interest is further
> evidence of bad faith by Dr. Wenger.
> 
> 
> 
> --Dean
> 
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> 
>> Hi all, It©ös part of my job to read, attempt to understand, and, if
>> necessary, act on postings on ipr-wg <at> ietf.org.  I do not have the
>> luxury to remove postings of certain individuals, including Mr.
>> Glassey©ös postings, through technical means---even if I would wish to
>> do so. I think it©ös acceptable to check with the IPR WG whether a
>> certain ruling may be relevant.  However, I©öm troubled that the
>> majority of these requests for a check appear to originate from the
>> same source, and that the vast majority, if not all of them, have been
>> dismissed quickly by the community (or by the chair, with no objection
>> by the community).  This time, the chair suggested that Mr. Glassey
>> submits an attorney©ös opinion on the subject, which seems to me an
>> entirely reasonable way forward, considering the history of Mr.
>> Glassey©ös mailing list activities.  Mr. Glassey©ös reply has been
>> taken the character of a direct personal attack against Harald.  That
>> I find unacceptable, and certainly disruptive.  I therefore request
>> the chair to consider yet another removal of Mr. Glassey©ös posting
>> privileges, for as long a period as possible under the relevant RFCs.
>> Best regards, Stephan Wenger P.s.: For the record, I personally
>> believe that the case Mr. Glassey has pointed us to has no relevance
>> to the IETF.
>>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 6 Sep 20:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Mr. Glassey's recent postings

Again Gentlemen this demonstrates the need for full disclosure as to each of 
us represents and who is paying the bills here.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean <at> av8.com>
To: "Stephan Wenger" <stewe <at> stewe.org>
Cc: "TS Glassey" <tglassey <at> earthlink.net>; "Contreras, Jorge" 
<Jorge.Contreras <at> wilmerhale.com>; <iesg <at> ietf.org>; <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Glassey's recent postings

> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Anderson,
>>
>> My opinion re your first and second points are known, and I'm not going 
>> to
>> re-iterate them.  But please allow me to address points 3 to 5, which can 
>> be
>> viewed as a personal, direct, and ill-informed attack against myself.
>
> You brought up your personal role, so it is relevant for me to dispute
> it.  Perhaps I was unclear about what I meant by 'work in the IPR
> department': Your CV does not indicate that you are an attorney. As far
> as I can tell, you merely follow patent issues and try to help Nokia
> make money with patents.  Your role is essentially no different from the
> role of most other people on this working group, including myself and
> Mr. Glassey.  Yet, for some reason you seek to elevate your/Nokia's
> interests above the interests of Mr. Glassey (and perhaps others), and
> unfairly promote your/Nokia's interests by asking to have your opponent
> unfairly silenced so that you don't have to read his occasional email to
> IPR-WG.  As I understand it, European unfair trade laws are even more
> strict than US laws, and your position seems to be seeking unfair trade
> advantages by influencing IETF policy.
>
>> As your third point, you must have an old copy of my private web page
>> in your cache.  My web page was last updated in early June 2008, and I
>> moved servers sometimes in mid July 2008; perhaps that helps to debug
>> your caching problem.
>
> Actually, I read http://www.stewe.org/cv-business-wenger.pdf which
> doesn't specifically mention a department, but mentions "IPR" 5 times.
> Its document properties indicates it was created 8/05/06 from MS Word on
> MAC OS X 10.4.7.just retrieved it again, and got the same document.
>
>> As clearly indicated in the first sentence of my private home page, I do
>> work in Nokia's IPR department.  Let me also assure you that my
>> responsibilities include patent policy work in the IETF.  Feel free to
>> verify that through whatever channel you have available.
>>
>> Regarding point four, please see the description of my responsibilities
>> above.  I do know how to configure an email client, but my interpretation 
>> of
>> my responsibilities require me to at least attempt to read all emails on
>> ipr-wg <at> ietf.org, including disruptive, off-topic, and sometime plain 
>> stupid
>> ones.
>
> This seems to be your personal problem, not anyone elses.  Mr. Glassey's
> emails have not been disruptive, nor off-topic, nor 'plain stupid'. I
> can't say the same for all others. But if it is indeed your job
> responsibility to read all messages regardless of their content value (I
> doubt that), then in that case it seems you are asking the IETF to do
> something that your employer won't let you do yourself. I fail to see
> why the IETF should assist you in avoiding your employer's rules. In
> anycase, the IETF is not your secretary.
>
>> And with point five, I disagree with your interpretation.  So, I strongly
>> believe, will most reasonable people do.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stephan Wenger
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/4/08 2:09 PM, "Dean Anderson" <dean <at> av8.com> wrote:
>>
>> > First, in my opinion, all of Mr.  Glassey's posting have been on-topic,
>> > and have been prima facie valid---even where I disagree with Mr.
>> > Glassey, his messages make prima facie valid and on-topic arguments;
>> > Mr. Glassey's messages are usually well-cited issues regarding patents,
>> > trademarks and copyrights relating to the work of the IPR-WG.  The
>> > recent message from Mr. Glassey on spoliation of evidence is likewise
>> > well-cited with authoritative legal references (US Federal District
>> > Court Order). This order is relevant since it explains the law on
>> > spoliation of evidence.  The order states (inter alia): (page 3)
>> >
>> >    A party engages in willful spoliation if the party has "some notice
>> >    that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation 
>> > before
>> >    they were destroyed." United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314
>> >    F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002).
>> >
>> > The IETF has recently discussed making alterations of IETF IPR
>> > disclosures. IETF IPR Disclosure documents are anticipated to be
>> > potentially relevant to litigation over the licensing terms granted by
>> > patent and copyright owners.  Because the IETF 'has some notice',
>> > spoliation therefore applies to the IETF IPR disclosures, and the topic
>> > is relevant to discussion on IPR-WG.
>> >
>> > Second, the personal attacks have been launched by Alvestrand, who has 
>> > a
>> > history of misrepresention and of launching emotional appeals against
>> > positions he doesn't like and a history of abusing his powers as Chair
>> > to silence opinions he doesn't like; the intent and result of which
>> > deceives the Working Group and the public and defrauds participants of
>> > their right to participate in a democratic process.  In this case, Mr.
>> > Glassey has just defended himself against the personal attack and the
>> > misrepresation by Alvestrand.  The condition stated by Alvestrand,
>> > opinion of counsel, are not required to post this information to
>> > ipr-wg <at> ietf.org.  Mr. Alvestrand's opinion that (only) Mr. Glassey
>> > cannot post authoritative legal references to ipr-wg are a personal
>> > attack on Mr. Glassey, and an attempt to improperly increase Mr.
>> > Glassey's legal expenses.  Mr. Alvestrand also misrepresents the
>> > authority of the legal reference cited by Mr Glassey:  The written 
>> > order
>> > of a Federal Court is not subject to the opinion of a lawyer before it
>> > becomes valid law.  The attempt by Mr. Alvestrand to deceive the 
>> > Working
>> > Group about the law regarding spoliation of evidence is improper.
>> >
>> > Third, According to http://www.stewe.org/ Dr. Wenger does not appear to
>> > be employed in the IPR department at Nokia. So his statement that "It's
>> > part of my job to read [...] postings on ipr-wg <at> ietf.org" does not
>> > appear to be accurate.  I will however contact Nokia personnel
>> > department to confirm this fact if Dr. Wenger insists that his job
>> > requires him to read every message on IPR-WG regardless of who posts 
>> > the
>> > message.
>> >
>> > Forth, Dr. Wenger's claim that "I do not have the luxury to remove
>> > postings of certain individuals" also appears to be a deception.
>> > According to headers in a message posted on August 1, 2008, Dr. Wenger
>> > uses an email client identfied by a User-Agent header called
>> > "Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522"  This email client gives Dr. 
>> > Wenger
>> > the ability to delete and filter email, contrary to Dr. Wenger's 
>> > claims.
>> > However, Dr. Wenger's email client abilities do not appear to be
>> > relevant to the complaint.  Even if it were the case that his email
>> > client couldn't delete or filter messages, that is Dr. Wenger's 
>> > problem.
>> > However, Dr. Wenger's deception here shows bad faith.
>> >
>> > Fifth, Dr. Wenger's assertions in a message to ipr-wg dated August 1,
>> > 2008 were disputed by Mr.  Glassey. So Dr. Wenger is a partisan in an
>> > argument in which Wenger and Glassey are on differing sides. Therefore
>> > Dr. Wenger has an undisclosed conflict of interest in making a 
>> > complaint
>> > against his opponent. The undisclosed conflict of interest is further
>> > evidence of bad faith by Dr. Wenger.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --Dean
>> >
>> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all, It©ös part of my job to read, attempt to understand, and, if
>> >> necessary, act on postings on ipr-wg <at> ietf.org.  I do not have the
>> >> luxury to remove postings of certain individuals, including Mr.
>> >> Glassey©ös postings, through technical means---even if I would wish to
>> >> do so. I think it©ös acceptable to check with the IPR WG whether a
>> >> certain ruling may be relevant.  However, I©öm troubled that the
>> >> majority of these requests for a check appear to originate from the
>> >> same source, and that the vast majority, if not all of them, have been
>> >> dismissed quickly by the community (or by the chair, with no objection
>> >> by the community).  This time, the chair suggested that Mr. Glassey
>> >> submits an attorney©ös opinion on the subject, which seems to me an
>> >> entirely reasonable way forward, considering the history of Mr.
>> >> Glassey©ös mailing list activities.  Mr. Glassey©ös reply has been
>> >> taken the character of a direct personal attack against Harald.  That
>> >> I find unacceptable, and certainly disruptive.  I therefore request
>> >> the chair to consider yet another removal of Mr. Glassey©ös posting
>> >> privileges, for as long a period as possible under the relevant RFCs.
>> >> Best regards, Stephan Wenger P.s.: For the record, I personally
>> >> believe that the case Mr. Glassey has pointed us to has no relevance
>> >> to the IETF.
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.17/1655 - Release Date: 9/5/2008 
7:05 PM
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
TS Glassey | 6 Sep 20:57
Picon
Favicon

Proposed BCP78 Language Changes

I want to propose the following review of BCP78 language specific to 
Submitters and Ownership/Follow-on Rights as currently spelled out in BCP78. 
They are wrong and this makes the BCP79 licenses ineffective so this needs 
some review to insure the BCP79 license is enforceable.

Without adieu - turn to page 13 and section 6...:

    1)    in  - 6.  Notices and Rights Required in RFC Editor Contributions

Section six is missing a whole bunch of language about the integrity of the 
IETF's process. I propose adding the following

"In all instances the IETF is committed to open and fair processes, and as 
such may only publish content for which all of the known IP Rights Owner's 
are disclosed. This is a critical piece of IETF operations because it 
insures that all of the development of associated protocols was done in a 
transparent manner".

    2)    in 6's opening paragraph remove the following words:

   "even for  Internet Drafts that are not intended to become part of the 
Standards Process"

 since it is irrelevant detail here in this statement and creates a mindset 
that all ID's are not treated alike under the IPR models which simply isn't 
true.  The licensing input model for IP is the intake more for IP whether 
its for use in the IETF as a part of the IETF process or for vetting through 
the IETF's Engineering Pools (aka WG's).

    3)    7.5.  Who Does This Apply To?

Let move on to 7.5 because is so badly broken that a first year law student 
would choke on it...

   Rights and licenses granted to the IETF under this document are
   granted to all individuals noted in Section 1(a), irrespective of
   their employment or institutional affiliation.

Yeah - I dont think so. We represent our sponsors period. Whether we are 
self-sponsored or otherwise and this where it lies. And with this next part 
its even worse:

------------------------------
   However, these
   licenses do not extend broadly to the employers, sponsors or
   institutions of such individuals, nor do they authorize the
   individuals to exercise any rights outside the specific context of
   the IETF Standards Process.
-------------------------------

Yeah - again no...    The Derivative Rights and Licenses belong to who they 
belong to. The IETF has nothing to say about the relationship between the 
IETF Participant and the Sponsor and that's it, end of statement. Otherwise 
the IETF is tortuously interfering with a commercial entity's ability to 
send its representatives to the IETF.

You may want to have your sponsor's legal department review this as well.

So look - with the excerpt from BCP78 above:

    a)     Parties who are sponsored MAY NOT make this assertion. Whether 
they represent their sponsor legally or not, it is their Sponsor themselves 
who owns the IP they are producing or donating to the IETF and not the 
participant's so this language needs to be adjusted to represent that.

Otherwise the submission of anything is a violation of fraud by wire 
statutes in the US as I see it. How about it counsel's - is the submission 
of something to the IETF an issue here when this section claims that the 
property and the rights to it belong ONLY to the submitter...

    b)    Since the Parties who are submitting and providing the vetting of 
IP Services on behalf of their Sponsor's Work Product Rights under US 
Copyright Law, unless there is a supplemental agreement between the Sponsor 
and the IETF this claim of "owns no other rights" isnt enforceable as well 
as far as I can tell.

---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ray Pelletier | 9 Sep 01:28
Favicon
Gravatar

Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

All

 The redline of the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents dated 9-8-08 has been uploaded to http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html in doc, pdf and rtf formats.

These changes have been made as a result of comments received since the version posted on 8-13-08:

4.1.a -- fixes the link to the list of code components,

 

4.1.c -- clarifies that the BSD license is the only license applicable to the use of code for processing by a computer, and that the licenses in Section 3 apply only to code as part of documents for review by people.

 

4.1.d -- makes attribution of code optional to avoid inconsistency with the BSD license.

Also, cites to www.ietf.org/trust have been changed to trustee.ietf.org/ to reflect current URL.

The Trustees plan to adopt a policy regarding Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents on 18 September.  Comments must be received prior to that date to be considered.

Ray Pelletier
Trustee
IAD

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 9 Sep 04:42
Picon
Favicon

Re: Last Call for Comments on " Legal Provisions Relatedto IETFDocuments"

Harald - if the source of the code snippets isnt listed then how will anyone 
do diligence on those IP's to determine patent or other external copyrights. 
The point is to enable people to do diligence on IETF IP's easily not make 
it harder.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <simon <at> josefsson.org>
Cc: "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras <at> wilmerhale.com>; <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>; 
"Ed Juskevicius" <edj <at> nortel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call for Comments on " Legal Provisions Relatedto 
IETFDocuments"

> Simon Josefsson skrev:
>> "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras <at> wilmerhale.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>> Please remove section 4.d completely.
>>>>
>>> I understand the point.  Several participants at the IPR-WG meeting
>>> requested this addition, but I would ask the list to reconsider in light
>>> of your feedback.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I can't seem to find anything in the IPR WG minutes
>> that touches on this topic.
>>
> I don't mind removing 4.d again
>
> I am somewhat confused, though - removing section 4.d means that one can 
> reuse the code components without identifying the source from which they 
> were taken at all, which seems to run counter to the general idea that all 
> reuse of IETF contributions should properly acknowledge their source.
>
> It may be that the best way to achieve this is to ask for an 
> acknowledgement, rather than demanding one - with all the ways code is 
> used, making very hard rules may reduce people's ability to do what they 
> have to do unneccessarily.
>>
>>>> The text to add would be:
>>>>
>>>>        To clarify, the entire license for Code Components is the above
>>>>        BSD license, and if you use this license for a Code Component,
>>>>        the license terms in section 3 does not apply to that material.
>>>>
>>> I agree that we should clarify:  the license under Section 3 is the ONLY
>>> license applicable to extracted Code Components.  The other licenses
>>> relate to the code-as-text in RFC and other documents.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
> I think this is a good clarification, and certainly was the intent.
> (one earlier version of the text would have seemed to accidentally remove 
> the permission to quote a piece of an RFC that included both text and 
> code - I'm certain this wasn't the intent).
>>
>>>> #3:
>>>>
>>>> The URL given for "common code components" doesn't work:
>>>> www.ietf.org/trust/code.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> /Simon
>>>>
>>> That's just a placeholder.  The code components list has not changed
>>> from the 7/18 version.  It will simply be moved to a URL that is
>>> operable once this document is final.
>>>
>>
>> The table found at
>> http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Code_Components_List_8-12-08.txt has been
>> modified compared to the 7/18 version though: the entry for 'algorithms
>> described in pseudocode' has been removed, which means it would no
>> longer be considered as a code component.
> After discussion on this list, it was made clear that the WG had not 
> agreed to include pseudocode, so the list was adjusted back to what the WG 
> had agreed on.
>
>                     Harald
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane