[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Summary of revised Last Call on draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update
Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:
> Simon,
>
> since you obviously have the documents in front of you:
>
> can you quote the exact sentences in -trust-update you object to on
> this basis and the corresponding pieces of 3978, and send them to the
> list?
The core of the problem is in section 2.2 and 2.4 of trust-update,
since that modify the legal language. The rest follows from that
change. Section 2.2 and 2.4 from trust-update:
,----
| 2.2. Update Section 3.3
|
| In section 3.3 replace two instances of "ISOC and the IETF" and one
| instance of "IETF and ISOC" with "IETF Trust."
...
| 2.4. Update Section 4.2
|
| In section 4.2 replace two instances of "ISOC and the IETF" and one
| instance of "IETF and ISOC" with "IETF Trust."
`----
RFC 3978 3.3 reads:
a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the Contribution:
...
(C) unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a
Contribution [as per Section 5.2 below], to prepare derivative
works (other than translations) that are based on or
incorporate all or part of the Contribution, or comment upon
it, within the IETF Standards Process. The license to such
derivative works not granting the ISOC and the IETF any more
rights than the license to the original Contribution,
...
b. The Contributor grants the IETF and ISOC permission to reference
the name(s) and address(es) of the Contributor(s) and of the
organization(s) s/he represents or is sponsored by (if any).
And 4.2 reads:
a. To the extent that an RFC Editor Contribution or any portion
thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship,
the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the
organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any)
grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all
intellectual property rights in the RFC Editor Contribution for at
least the life of the Internet-Draft:
...
(C) unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in an
RFC Editor Contribution (as per Section 5.2 below), to prepare
derivative works (other than translations) that are based on
or incorporate all or part of the RFC Editor Contribution, or
comment upon it. The license to such derivative works not
granting the ISOC and the IETF any more rights than the
license to the original RFC Editor Contribution, and
...
b. The Contributor grants the IETF and ISOC permission to reference
the name(s) and address(es) of the Contributor(s) and of the
organization(s) s/he represents or is sponsored by (if any).
I see no problem in saying "IETF and IETF Trust" in all of these
places.
The current text in trust-update modifies the license, and removes
rights granted to "IETF". That is not a editorial modification.
If the urgency was the references to ISOC, using "IETF and IETF Trust"
shouldn't be a problem.
There are two minor parts too, mostly as a consequence to the above
change:
,----
| 2.1. Update introduction
|
| In the third paragraph of Section 1 replace "IETF and Internet
| Society (ISOC)" with "IETF Trust" and replace "IETF and ISOC" with
| "IETF Trust."
`----
First, there is a typo here, "Section 1" should be "Section 2".
Section 2 in RFC 3978 contains:
In order for works to be used within the IETF Standards Process or to
be published as Internet-Drafts, certain limited rights in all
Contributions must be granted to the IETF and Internet Society
(ISOC). In addition, Contributors must make representations to IETF
and ISOC regarding their ability to grant these rights.
I believe it would be more accurate to say "IETF" and "IETF Trust"
here, if the changes to 2.2/2.4 above is implemented.
,----
| 2.9. Update Section 7.1
|
| In Section 7.1, replace two instances of "IETF/ISOC" with "IETF
| Trust".
`----
Section 7.1 reads:
The IETF/ISOC must obtain the right to publish an IETF Contribution
as an RFC or an Internet-Draft from the Contributors.
...
The authors retain all other rights, but cannot withdraw the above
rights from the IETF/ISOC.
Here, dropping "IETF" also seems wrong.
> I remember some pieces of text where "IETF" really didn't make sense,
> but can't remember whether or not those were the ones that got
> changed.
Agreed, in some places it doesn't make sense, but in the above places,
I believe it makes sense. "IETF" and "IETF Trust" are not the same
legal entity. The outgoing rights from the IETF Trust aren't clear to
me, but presumably they aren't the same as those granted to the "IETF"
in RFC 3978, and if so, mentioning both makes sense.
> Standard rant: If a message goes out with "Last Call" in the title and
> "B - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00" as one of
> its options, I have a hard time understanding that you claim that we
> haven't made a Last Call on the document....
The WGLC was for draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update, which was what the title
indicated. There were no explicit request for comments on
trust-update, and being on vacation, I didn't review the document, but
took Steven's word for that it only updated ISOC->IETF Trust.
I read the second last call as a last call on the decision on which
document we should move forward with, and not a last call on getting
comments on the document. There is a subtle difference.
Since the first call suggested that trust-update only changed "ISOC"
into "IETF Trust", people may have assumed that trust-update did
nothing more, and didn't review it further.
An explicit WGLC on trust-update would have helped getting more review
of trust-update (at least I know that I would have read the document
earlier), but I understand that the time pressure didn't permit this.
Thanks,
Simon
> Harald
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Based on this tally, the chairs will send
>>> draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00 to the IESG for Last Call and
>>> approval.
>>>
>>
>> I wish we could have a WGLC on the actual document first, though, but
>> maybe there is no time. In any case, here are my comments on the
>> document. If there is no time to address this before the Last Call,
>> I'll send them again later.
>>
>> The document seems to go beyond changing "ISOC" into "IETF Trust",
>> which was what one of the chairs indicated earlier:
>>
>> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu> writes:
>>
>>
>>> If the WG is unhappy with this draft, we will proceed with
>>> draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00.txt instead, a draft that changes
>>> nothing but the ISOC->Trust text.
>>>
>>
>> Specifically, the document also changes "IETF" to "IETF Trust" in
>> several places. The definition of IETF is:
>>
>> a. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
>> individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
>> lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
>> initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
>> designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
>> solely to the extent of such participation.
>>
>> The "IETF" is not the same as the "IETF Trust". Changing the former
>> to the latter in the legalese modifies the rights granted directly to
>> IETF participants.
>>
>> Those changes seems unwarranted and unrelated -- as far as I
>> understood, the urgency is that RFC 3978 no longer should refer to
>> ISOC, but instead reference the IETF Trust.
>>
>> Specifically, the urgency was _not_ that the references to "IETF" was
>> problematic, so I believe we should not remove, in several places,
>> that term in the document, but defer that change to other IPR WG
>> decisions.
>>
>> Therefor, I request that draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update should be
>> updated to only change "ISOC" and "Internet Society" to "IETF Trust".
>> Do not also change "IETF" into "IETF Trust".
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg