[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Comment on section 2.3 of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01
Simon,
RFC 2026 had a number of omissions, inconsistencies and inadequacies that were
discussed at great length during the process that led to BCP 78. The new
language exists and it is an improvement. Going back to the language of
2026 would, in my view, be a mistake.
I don't understand the issue that you're raising re. "perpetual". That
term is plainly included in the license grant under Section 3.3.a of
BCP 78.
I'll try to address the rest of the recent discussion threads soon.
Regards,
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf
Of Simon Josefsson
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:24 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comment on section 2.3 of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01
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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg