Re: Consensus? IPR rights and all that
2004-12-07 16:04:45
The most helpful aspect of this exercise is that is is helping to define
with the IETF what it wants to happen going forward. With good will and a
certain amount of professionalism on all sides, I don't think it should be
too hard to get from here to there.
I agree that this is about the future, but there are various aspect of any
transition that must deal with current practicalities. Omitting discussion
of past IPR in the document is probably desirable, as you indicate,
provided that the realities of a transition from what has been to what will
be are recognized, hopefully understood, and dealt with accordingly in the
process.
bob
At 01:55 AM 12/7/2004, avri(_at_)acm(_dot_)org wrote:
I understand that there may be conflicting claims on the current IPR, but
isn't the document about the future and about the conditions under which
new sw, tools and data would be contracted. I don't understand why a
discussion of past IPR, or the claims on its ownership, would be a subject
for this BCP.
Or, is the suggestion, to put a statement in somewhere that the IASA is
responsible for negotiating to obtain the same rights on all relevant IPR
created in the past that it requires for all future IPR.
a.
On 7 dec 2004, at 03.41, Bob Kahn wrote:
Harald,
I am enroute back to Washington at the moment, but did want to comment on
IP matters.
I think it fair to state in the document what the IETF thinks appropriate
for it to manage its own affairs going forward, but one of the matters we
will have to work out is the fact that there is considerable IP generated
over the past almost twenty years. At present, CNRI owns most of this IP,
but the US Government may have certain continuing rights in the data as well.
As you know, I have committed publicly to working with the IETF on the
administrative restructuring issues. Over the coming year, I hope we can
work out how best to handle matters such these, but at best the document
ought to recognize this fact of life and that it will be necessary to
address these matters in due course going forward.
bob
At 04:29 AM 12/6/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Hi folks,
it seems that we are drawing close to a consensus here:
- Access to data that the IETF has created and needs to function is a
paramount basic principle. Not to be compromised. So it needs to go VERY
plainly into section 2.2 "principles".
- Access to software is a very-nice-to-have, but it's only critical if
not having it limits our ability to effectively access the data. And
open-source is a quite-nice-to-have; we see a number of advantages in
doing things that way, but there may be cases where other considerations
apply. So this belongs in the document, but under "advice", not "principles".
So - I'd like to propose a specific text change to address that:
Replace the current section from 2.2 that says:
6. The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in
any way by ISOC from the IETF.
with the following:
6. The IASA, on behalf of the IETF, shall have an irrevocable,
permanent right of access and later use to all data created
in support of the IETF's activities, including
the right to disclose it to other parties of its choosing.
And in section 3.1 "IAD Responsibilities", add after paragraph 4 ("The
IAD negotiates service contracts"):
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA
and the IETF the rights in data that is needed to satisfy the principle
of data access.
This is needed to make sure the IETF
has access to the data it needs at all times, and that the IASA can
change contractors when needed without disrupting IETF work.
If software is developed under an IASA contract, the software should
remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract; this may
be accomplished by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open
source license is preferable. The IAD will decide how the interest of
the IETF is best served when making such contracts.
Note: I have tried to write the sentences above without using any of the
legal terms "copyright", "ownership" or "work for hire" - these are all
terms of art that I know I don't fully understand, and I believe it's
possible to state the principles without using those terms.
Reasonable?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- Re: Consensus? IPR rights and all that, (continued)
|
|
|