ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions

2008-08-19 18:20:38
On 2008-08-16 05:44, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:

I agree with John, and expect that if the IETF Trust will now be allowed
to take an expired ID, and do with it want it wants outside of the
standards process, 

I read the text of RFC 2026 as Simon does, but RFC 3667 and 3978 added
the phrase "within the IETF Standards Process" to the derivative
works rights (clause 3.3.a.(C) ).

However, that phrase was removed from the equivalent clause
5.3.(C) of draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming.
Also, draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights says:

"4.2.  Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions

   There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit the quoting
   without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions.  Such
   excerpts may be of any length and in any context.  Translation of
   quotations is also to be permitted.  All such quotations should be
   attributed properly to the IETF and the IETF contribution from which
   they are taken."

There doesn't seem to be much doubt of the IPR WG's intention
to change this. I've just re-read the IPR WG charter, and this sort
of adjustment seems to be in scope.

the result will (appropriately) be to have more
finely tuned IPR declarations, which make it clear that the declaration
is targeted at the specific standard in question, and is not applicable
beyond that, inside or outside of the IETF standardization process. As
far as I can tell, there is, and should be, nothing that prohibits IPR
holders from making such refined declarations, 

But there is. The derivative works statements are limited to those
allowed in the Legend Instructions; see clause 6c in
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF_Trust_Legal_Provisions_for_IETF_Docs_8-13-08.pdf

and such declarations
will easily meet the requirements for being a valid IPR declaration to
the IETF. IMO this simply underscores the valid separation of patent
rights and copyright rights in the IETF process, that some still seem to
be confused over.

I don't see that. IPR disclosures are about patents. The derivative
works language is about text.

   Brian


Regards, 
Chuck 
------------- 
Chuck Powers, 
Motorola, Inc 
phone: 512-427-7261
mobile: 512-576-0008
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: 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

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

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