Re: Comment on section 2.3 of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

I think we should preserve the RFC 2026 text as much as possible.  If
RFC 2026 used that wording, we don't need a motivation to keep it.  We
would need a motivation to drop it, and I haven't seen one.  Lacking
legal meaning is not a reason, I should be able to read the document
as non-lawyer, and I find that this sentence add value.

I don't follow your example.  Granting rights is not the same as
giving a dollar.  It is possible to grant non-perpetual rights, but,
as far as I know, it is not possible to give a dollar that will cease
to work after a while.

Thanks,
Simon

Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> writes:

> Another question to Jorge: does the "perpetual" language actually
> add anything, or is it the default legal interpretation.
>
> In other words, is there any legal difference between
> "I give you this dollar" and "I give you this dollar perpetually"?
>
>    Brian
>
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> The new text in section 2.3 of -01 is a good attempt to address the
>> reprint right, although when comparing it to the RFC 2026 text, I note
>> that one aspect in 2026:
>>          The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and
>> will
>>          not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
>>          assigns.
>> is not reflected in the new text.  How about changing:
>>    (F) to permit third parties to copy, publish, display and
>>        distribute the Contribution without modification (except for
>>        translation into languages other than English) as part of a
>>        full, unmodified RFC (which may be translated into the same
>>        language as such Contribution), for any purpose, whether or not
>>        within the IETF Standards Process.
>> ...
>>    Permission is granted to translate this document or portions of
>>    this document into languages other than English. Permission is also
>>    hereby granted to copy, publish, display and distribute this
>>    document or portions of this document, or their translations,
>>    without additional modification.
>> into (my modifications underlined):
>>    (F) to grant third parties the perpetual right to copy, publish,
>>           ---------------------------------
>>        display and distribute the Contribution without modification
>>        (except for translation into languages other than English) as
>>        part of a full, unmodified RFC (which may be translated into
>>        the same language as such Contribution), for any purpose,
>>        whether or not within the IETF Standards Process.
>> ...
>>    Permission is granted to translate this document or portions of
>>    this document into languages other than English. Permission is also
>>    hereby granted to copy, publish, display and distribute this
>>    document or portions of this document, or their translations,
>>    without additional modification.  These permissions are perpetual
>>                                      -------------------------------
>>    and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors
>>    -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>    or assigns.
>>    -----------
>> Of course, I believe we should grant more rights to third parties,
>> but
>> my proposal deal with that.  I am trying to improve Scott's document
>> here, so we won't have to spend time on this relatively minor issue at
>> the meeting.
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg