Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:
>> 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
As far as I understand, that clause is about copyrights, not patents.
Patent disclosures can state almost anything, and can certainly say that
they are only valid if document X becomes anFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Tue Aug 19 17:03:41 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3B83A6A1E;
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5DE3A6B67
for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id XM3GHOTnEj8H for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yxa-v.extundo.com (yxa-v.extundo.com [83.241.177.39])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DCA3A69CF
for <ietf at ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c80-216-126-5.bredband.comhem.se ([80.216.126.5]
helo=mocca.josefsson.org)
by yxa-v.extundo.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <simon at josefsson.org>)
id 1KVbAg-0005pH-7B; Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:03:33 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions
References: <8763q4kqh5.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>
<C4C98E1B.27107%stewe at stewe.org>
<2963ECA56B01F94B9964469DCB8A2B5A04EF4C55 at de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
<7433AC2667DFA914174B6920 at [192.168.1.110]>
<874p5ms5ak.fsf_-_ at mocca.josefsson.org>
<1BC62BBA2900BBBDB0FFBD03 at [192.168.1.110]>
<2963ECA56B01F94B9964469DCB8A2B5A04EF4FBF at de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
<48AB54F4.2060604 at gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:080819:john-ietf at jck.com::jMIFEMuKxlCBmKNF:1Wfm
X-Hashcash: 1:22:080819:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com::otr8ydBmR1CDpmi/:5xs9
X-Hashcash: 1:22:080819:ietf at ietf.org::NcqiXCFojYN+Covz:OlRv
X-Hashcash: 1:22:080819:chuck.powers at motorola.com::CWxFs8mQ+0Q9utv7:L/Ij
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:03:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <48AB54F4.2060604 at gmail.com> (Brian E. Carpenter's message of
"Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:19:16 +1200")
Message-ID: <87k5ec1rjj.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>,
Powers Chuck-RXCP20 <Chuck.Powers at motorola.com>, ietf at ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:
>> 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
As far as I understand, that clause is about copyrights, not patents.
Patent disclosures can state almost anything, and can certainly say that
they are only valid if document X becomes an IETF st IETF standard.
>> 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.
Alas, RFC 3979 seems pretty clear to me that "IPR" is intended to cover
many things:
o. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright,
utility model, invention registration, database and data rights
that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights
arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application
therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
To me the use of the term "IPR Disclosure" in RFC 3979 refers to
disclosures about any kind of "IPR" as defined in that document.
Fixing the language in RFC 3979 to not confuse patents with copyrights
etc would be a commendable effort.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
andard.
>> 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.
Alas, RFC 3979 seems pretty clear to me that "IPR" is intended to cover
many things:
o. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright,
utility model, invention registration, database and data rights
that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights
arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application
therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
To me the use of the term "IPR Disclosure" in RFC 3979 refers to
disclosures about any kind of "IPR" as defined in that document.
Fixing the language in RFC 3979 to not confuse patents with copyrights
etc would be a commendable effort.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
