Sam Hartman wrote:
Speaking as an individual, *not* as an AD, I'd love to see the free
software community get together and give input to the IETF (possibly
in the form of an informational RFC) on the following issues:
1) Extracting tables and code from IETF standards for use in free/open-
source software.
2) What patent holders who would like to license software should do if
they want to create a license that open-source/free software
authors can use when licensing technology in Internet standards.
I addressed your two items in the Open Standards Principles I emailed to
this list earlier this week. These principles describe the licenses that
must apply to copyrighted and patented IP in IETF specifications in order to
make them compatible with free and open source software.
With respect to copyrighted works (your item #1) contained in IETF
specifications to be used in free/open source software:
1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official specification
for an open standard under an open source license.
With respect to patent claims (your item #2) necessary to implement IETF
specifications in free/open source software:
2. Everyone is free to make or use embodiments of an open standard
under unconditional licenses to patent claims necessary to
practice that standard.
3. Everyone is free to distribute externally, sell, offer for sale,
have made or import embodiments of an open standard under patent
licenses that may be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to
any of licensees' patent claims necessary to practice that standard.
4. A patent license for an open standard may be terminated as to any
licensee who sues the licensor or any other licensee for infringement
of patent claims necessary to practice that standard.
5. All patent licenses necessary to practice an open standard are
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual and sublicenseable.
If you think it would be useful to submit these five Open Standards
Principles as an informational RFC, certainly I can do that. But perhaps
they can be discussed here first in their current form without that
formality. I welcome comments and suggestions.
/Larry Rosen
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ipr-wg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Sam Hartman
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:07 AM
To: ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Copying conditions
"Simon" == Simon Josefsson <jas(_at_)extundo(_dot_)com> writes:
Simon> sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu (scott bradner) writes:
>> For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454
>> and use them in my implementation.
>>
>> For Kerberos, I want to be able to use the ASN.1 schema in my
>> implementation, and copy the terminology section into my
>> manual.
>>
>> For SASL, I want to incorporate portions of the introduction
>> section from the RFC into my manual, to make sure some
>> terminology is explained correctly.
>>
>> For GSS-API, I want to be able to copy the C header file with
>> function prototypes into my implementation.
>>
>> just so there is no misunderstanding - the intent of RFC 3668
>> was to permit such extractions and there was (and is) no desire
>> to restrict such extractions
>>
>> I, as editor, state publicly that I think that RFC 3667 permits
>> such extractions, we (or maybe I) may have not made that clear
>> enough in RFC 3667, but I think that RFC 3667 supports these
>> uses
Simon> I have received preliminary feedback from IPR specialists
Simon> that seem to indicate to me that neither the old RFC
Simon> copying conditions, nor the new copying conditions in RFC
Simon> 3667, would permit all of the above extractions into free
Simon> software.
Simon> I am working on getting them to explain their reasoning on
Simon> the Free Software Foundation's web pages (presumably at
Simon> [1]), which I believe would be useful input for the IPR
Simon> working group, but the process has been slow. I hope I'm
Simon> not putting words in their mouth by stating that my
Simon> interpretation of what they said is that there is a
Simon> problem.
Simon> Do the IETF care about free software enough to work on
Simon> modifying the copying conditions of future RFCs?
Speaking as an individual, *not* as an AD, I'd love to see the free
software community get together and give input to the IETF (possibly
in the form of an informational RFC) on the following issues:
1) Extracting tables and code from IETF standards for use in free/open-
source software.
2) What patent holders who would like to license software should do if
they want to create a license that open-source/free software
authors can use when licensing technology in Internet standards.
Such input should explain what the requirements are and should give
both legal and practical reasoning to justify them. Such input should
avoid trying to criticize or demand changes in the IETF, but instead
should focus on what the IETF would need to do if we need to make
parts of our RFCs extractable or what patent holders would need to do
to make licenses useful to the free software community. I would
strongly recommend avoiding discussion of the general patent policies
of the IETF; arguments that the IETF should not use patented
technology will only serve to annoy people who might otherwise listen
to what you have to say.
I'd recommend that any such input accurately represent at least the
following parties positions':
1) The Free Software Foundation
2) The Open Source Initiative
3) The Debian Project
I believe all three of these parties have slightly incompatible views
on the issues in question. It would be very frustrating to consider
such input only to discover that some segment of the open source
community still felt we had not addressed their concerns even though
the input was represented as complete.
If you do get free software people to talk to the IETF about IPR,
please find people who can work well in the consensus process. People
who are good at explaining and understanding are better than people
who have firm convictions and are good at arguing. However when
explaining the needs of external communities participants would need
to actually accurately represent these needs. It would be unfortunate
if we came to a compromise that was acceptable to everyone involved in
the consensus process only to find that it was unacceptable to the
external community.
Good luck,
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf