Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting slot)

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Joel
The Group's consensus does NOT speak for the rest of the IETF and that is a
core failing therein. The issue is whether code is licensed for any and all
uses needed to facilitate a standard" OR "for any and all uses" period.

If the license is written with the current language then the IETF gave the
control of the code and its trademarks which are part of the document away.
This isn't my interpretation its the law and if Jorge is unwilling to
formally comment on this, you might ask him off the record why...

As to the issues here - this is the IETF - not the "We own your IP forever"
place. Its purpose is to be an open and fair framework and process flow for
the creation of 'standards by consensus of those involved in the development
of that standard' and nothing else.

That means that the way to deal with the Troll issue that pisses so many of
you off is to force the Trolls to be an active part of the Vetting Process.
The fact that there is no formal road map as to what Vetting is or how its
accomplished is a failing of the process architects now (Hey SOB yes I am
speaking of you... and a number of others - the mechanics of your systems
are broken, without oversight and without process-management for contingency
or real dispute resolution.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
To: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting
slot)


> Well, I sure understood the rough consensus of the working group to
> be "everyone can use the code any way they want."
>
> I originally was in favor of a more restricted view, and came around
> to the unlimited perspective.

Why - that makes it impossible to include IP controlled under any more
restrictive IP Grants or Licenses.

>
> I would be very uncomfortable if every author could slap any
> restrictions they want on the code in RFCs.

Why ? - You DONT OWN the Standard and that is one of the core failings of
the mindset of this Group evidently.

> That would seem to distinctly fail the agreed goal.

Who agreed upon that Goal and was it 'vetted' in any form with the people it
will effect? No? Didnt think so.

>
> And that's why 5.5 is written the way it is, I think.
> We want to allow other licenses.  But those licenses can not prevent
> people from using code in RFCs according to the IETF goal.

Again - who's goal?

> And, according to the WG agreeement, we are not trying to craft legal
> language in the RFC.

You CANNOT craft a submission process and guideline for Intellectual
Properties without dealing with the Legal issues. Especially the Copyright
issues per se.

>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> At 06:37 AM 10/5/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> >>Finally, I think section 5.3 is wrong to imply that "everyone can use
> >>the code" is a required goal.  It is certainly a good goal,

Only if the intent of the IETF is to become an "Open Source" type resource
where any and all standanrds codified through it are particular to products
and processes that MUST be licensed to all under those terms.

Also what happens to all of the IP that came in before the amendments to the
RFC2026 or BCP78/79 guidelines existed? This is a serious question since
those license grants are not retroactive to those IP's submitted before
those amended terms of participation were included.

Also - if this IETF (today's) is offering services and requiring rights that
the previous IETF didnt, then those participants were allowed a different
set of processes for their participation and that creates an adversarial
model between todays IP and yesterday's.

> >> but
> >>sometimes the only options are to either not include code at all, or
> >>include code with a license that results in not everyone being able to
> >>use it.  In those situations, I think the choice is simple.
> >>
> >That seems like a good basis for updating 5.3 - after all, we're
> >trying to document what we want to accomplish....
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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