On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
On Dec 13, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Cullen Jennings responded:
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it.
If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of
this one way or the other that would be great. I am pretty sure this
was not widely understood when it was IETF LC and I very confident it
was not understood by the IESG when when they approved it.
Cullen Jennings is right. I remember that the IPR WG consistently focused on
narrow issues rather than assessing the big picture.
As to Sam Hartman's original question, he is free to take any RFC and modify
it to describe the essential functions of a different industry standard
functional specification without asking anyone's permission. He needn't seek
a copyright license from IETF or from any contributor to IETF. Quite simply,
copyright doesn't apply:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work
of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system,
method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 USC 102(b).
The notion is not right, albeit that it is reflected in the current IETF IPR
policy, that a process can be in any way restricted from being improved
because someone planted a copyright notice on its essential description. An
description of a process, method of operation, etc., cannot be locked away
and prevented from amendment and improvement because of copyright. Allowing
that would subject our functional process specifications in IETF to 100-year
copyright monopolies even though there aren't even 20-year patent monopolies
that apply to that specification. Nobody owns those ideas or the essential
descriptions of those ideas; they are public domain.
So my answer to Sam's question is: I dare anyone to try and stop you or me
from taking an IETF RFC and revising it as necessary to express any new
idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle,
or discovery. And I dare anyone to try and stop IETF or any other standards
organization from adopting such an improvement as a revised RFC because of a
copyright notice.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf