Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions

--On Friday, August 15, 2008 4:48 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson 
<simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org> wrote:
> John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
>
> > However, the IPR WG, in its wisdom, has concluded, in some
> > phrasing that was changed fairly late in the game, that the
> > IETF Trust should get enough rights in I-Ds to authorize all
> > sorts of subsequent uses of them and their content, with no
> > time limit.
> You have claimed this before, but I don't understand it.  RFC
> 2026 says that the IETF receives a fairly broad license to do
> anything it wants with all contributions, see section 10.3.1:
I believe that, subject to the "you can't really use this" 
disclaimers allowed by 2026, the IETF has the right to do just 
about anything it wants or needs to do with text in an I-D, 
active or expired, as long as doing that is part of the 
standards process.  I agree that 2026 is clear about that, as 
were precedents before it.   And, referring to one of your 
earlier notes, I think that includes pulling text out of an I-D 
that has been expired for years and years and incorporating it 
into a new I-D, publishing it as an RFC, etc.
I also believe it is absolutely necessary for the IETF to have 
those rights.   I did not intend my note to say anything else 
and hope I've been consistent about that over the years.
> ...
> Is your objection that the Trust is now authorized to grant
> uses outside of the IETF process?
I believe that there is nothing in 2026 that allows the IETF, 
ISOC, or the trust to grant any rights, or any sort, to anyone 
to do anything with text in I-Ds (or other contributions) 
outside of use _by the IETF_ (i.e., as part of the standards 
process).  The ability of the Trust to grant such rights 
originates with assumptions about the Trust itself and, in 
detail, in the recent "inbound" and "outbound" rights documents. 
I believe that the approach taken in those documents wrt I-Ds, 
especially expired I-Ds, is wrong and that we will eventually 
regret it.  YMMD and I am clearly in the minority on that 
subject.
That said, because I believe the IETF has the absolute right to 
pick up prior I-D text at any point and reuse it, I believe that 
disclosure statements that were made while the I-D was active 
have to be retained for that long, i.e., to a good approximation 
of forever.   Ted's comments about how meaningful those earlier 
disclosure statements are and for how long are very much 
relevant to this, but I don't think change the retention period. 
And, even if my "no new disclosures for expired I-Ds" proposal 
were adopted, I think it would be reasonable to permit comments 
that provided explanations about licensing or release status or 
forward pointers to disclosures associated with more recent or 
superceding documents.
   john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf