Re: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labelling)

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>]

Harald - I wasnt re-kicking a dead horse,  but as long as you used the magic
words, let me ask you, what does the phrase "Implementation of  IETF
standards" mean? - these are special words - so lets be real clear in a
legal sense what you mean by this phrase...

For instance does it mean that someone may want to copy the text of the
IETF's Document and Impramatur for their own document; or does it mean that
they want to usae the core IP in the publication to 'create a system in the
real-world based on the design specified in the IETF Standard'? or does it
mean something else?

I ask this becuase your commentary brings to mind that what the IETF
actually is doing is building a set of interoperable protocol models for
specific tasks or ranges of tasks. What it has to sell is the use of its
protocol-interoperability mechanisms and that's about all since the IETF
itself doesnt own the protocols it vets per se... The point of this question
is simply in asaking you what, if someone is going to say that their
protocol is IETF compliant what, do they need from the IETF to say that?

1)    Do they need the rights to implement that protocol? i.e. the rights
from whoever to actually build the protocol stack or module

2)    Do they need the rights to use the IETF's Trandmark with regard to the
Complaince Statement or Derivative Of Statement's in its documentation?

3)    Does the IETF claim any rights to the implemented protocols from its
vetted designs?

4)    Does the IETF have any fundamental claim or responsibility for the
maintanence of the IP they codify as IETF Standards?

This is an important set of questions since it clearly defines what rights
and licensing you will have to propagate through from one side of the
process to the other.

T.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at att.net>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:10 AM
Subject: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labelling)


> >
> >
> >"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org> writes:
> >> >
> >
> >
> >>>>> >>>> I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a document
that
> >>>>> >>>> invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right to
make
> >>>>> >>>>    modifications and derivative works of an IETF Contribution
(other
> >>>>> >>>>    than translations), one of the two of the following notices
may be
> >>>>> >>>>    included in the Status of Memo section of an Internet-Draft
and
> >>>>> >>>>    included in a published RFC:
> >>>>> >>>> ...
> >>>>> >>>>    b. "This document may not be modified, and derivative works
of it
> >>>>> >>>> may
> >>>>> >>>>       not be created."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >Which prevents the IETF or anyone from implementing this protocol as
well.
> >Was that the intent? Without the derivative works licenseing, the ports
> >cannot be documented.
> >
> >
>
> Todd,
> I have to remind you that your issue #1198 was closed with the resolution:
>
> > Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
> > documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
> > produce derivative works based on those pieces.
> >
> > Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces do
> > not need the right to produce such derivative works.
>
> Do not attempt to reopen that issue.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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