[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

I think this exchange again underscores the need to be clear about what our goals are .... a WG meeting (or a heated mailing list debate) is a reasonable place to get an idea of what it is that people want to accomplish - the goals and prinicples of the effort.

However, crafting legal language that accomplishes the same thing is a job requiring lawyers, care and time.

I think we should focus the WG meeting on getting consensus on the stuff we want to accomplish.

                     Harald, speaking as participant

--On 7. november 2005 17:33 +0100 Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com> wrote:

"Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras at wilmerhale.com> writes:

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 though the intention of the text would be the same as in RFC 2026.
This doesn't appear to be the case here.  I am happy with new text if
the meaning is the same as the old.

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.


Please re-read my message, I am commenting on the boiler plate that
would be put into RFCs that permit reprinting to third parties.  The
word perpetual is not used there.  Section 3.3.a isn't applicable
here.

I'll try to address the rest of the recent discussion threads soon. 

Please do.

I believe it would be better to grant the reprint right to third
parties in 3.3 rather than changing the boiler plate, which is what
Scott's draft attempt to do now.

Thanks,
Simon

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





Attachment: pgpHbBKcEImNw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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