Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diegomeetingslot)

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David B Harrington" <dbharrington at comcast.net>
To: "'Harald Alvestrand'" <harald at alvestrand.no>; "'Simon Josefsson'"
<jas at extundo.com>
Cc: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <joel at stevecrocker.com>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; "'Steven
M. Bellovin'" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:17 AM
Subject: RE: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San
Diegomeetingslot)


> Hi,
>
> I have a real problem with copyrighting and licensing sections of an
> IETF standard.
>
> In the same way the author list was abused, I can see copyrighting
> sections of an RFC being abused. Corporations would love to embed
> licenses in industry standards, and the IETF has opposed that practice
> for a long time (it is losing the battle, but we tried).
>
> Imagine when each contributor can claim copyright on "their
> contribution" to the document. Does the WG get to rewrite the
> copyrighted sample code if it is implemented in a manner that is not
> consistent with WG consensus, or is the WG required to keep it intact?
> If the document editor rewords contributed copyrighted paragraphs, is
> it still copyrighted by the original contributor, or does the editor
> get to copyright it, or the WG if it is reworded to meet WG consensus?
> Or do we need to keep all the contributions as they were submitted,
> and end up with an anthology of copyrighted paragraphs? Will our
> documents balloon to twice their current size because of all the
> copyrights? Will the documents still be readable?
>
> I think allowing contributors to copyright their contributions is
> simply not a useful way to go, even if the contribution is a section
> of code.

Why? - is the purpose of the process so that the IETF owns any and all
rights to the Standard and the Underlying IP's?

If that's true then the IETF has an issue with the Tax Value of those IP's
and what it plans to do about that ***IS*** going to become a serious issue
since I am formally filing a claim on the Bounty against that unpaid Tax.

>
> Viral licenses should be treated the way any other license is treated
> by the IETF - the owner of the material can declare the licensing
> terms on the IETF's IPR page, and the WG can decide whether to accept
> the licensing terms in the draft.
>

No It CAN NOT. The IETF cannot refuse any IP submission without creating a
tortuous interferrance claim for the Submitter against the IETF and those
WG/AD/IESG members that decided not to 'allow that entity's work to be
standardized'

> Then implementers of a commercial product can decide whether to
> include the encumbered standard based on the terms and implementers of
> open source can decide whether to include the encumbered standard
> based on the terms. Debian and others can decide they will not include
> commercially-encumbered standards in their products, and commercial
> vendors can decide not to include virally-encumbered standards in
> their products.

Not with the IETF's current process they cant.

>
> David Harrington
> dharrington at huawei.com
> dbharrington at comcast.net
> ietfdbh at comcast.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:49 AM
> > To: Simon Josefsson
> > Cc: Joel M. Halpern; ipr-wg at ietf.org; Steven M. Bellovin
> > Subject: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San
> > Diego meetingslot)
> >
> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > > Section 5.5 of your document seem to discuss this topic,
> > but it does not
> > > solve the problem.
> > >
> > > One problem is that free software licenses are poorly
> > understood by this
> > > WG.  In particular, your section 5.3 and 5.5 work against
> > each other.
> > >
> > > To be applicable for inclusion in a free software product, which
> is
> > > something your section 5.3 claim is something we want to permit,
> the
> > > work need to have a clear license.
> > >
> > > Organizations and companies, such as Debian, review the license
> for
> > > works that are candidates for being included in their
> > distributions.  If
> > > the license is not clear, the work cannot be included.
> > >
> > > Most, if not all, internationally valid licenses are based
> > on copyright.
> > > The licenses typically require that the copyright notice is
> > present and
> > > preserved.
> > Changing the subject line, since this needs to be discussed
> > on the list
> > (Simon won't be in San Diego, and we need to discuss it on
> > the list anyway).
> >
> > I think the thrust of -outgoing is that there needs to be
> > legal language
> > crafted to achieve the desired effect; I think such legal
> > language will
> > have at least 2 components:
> >
> > - The actual license from the IETF to whoever uses the documents
> > - The way in which other rights are acknowledged or referenced
> >
> > The "additional difficulties" that 5.5 refers to are, I think, the
> > difficulty of making sure in a way that is acceptable to IETF
> > participants and users of IETF products that the rights
> > granted through
> > the IETF are in no way limited by the additional notices. (I
> > think the
> > draft needs to be updated to be explicit about what those
> > difficulties
> > are, btw - the people reading it 5 years down the road won't
> > be able to
> > remember this discussion).
> >
> > The GPL is a good example, because I think the IETF will have
> > problems
> > claiming that software licensed *only* under the GPL conforms to the
>
> > desire that "anyone can use them" in section 5.3; people who
> > refuse to
> > use code that is under "viral" licensing terms will not be
> > able to use it.
> >
> > So something in an RFC that is marked as
> >
> >   this code sample copyright (c) Simon. All rights reserved.
> > Available
> > under the GPL
> >
> > is not acceptable under 5.3 (I think - more opinions wanted), while
> >
> >   this code sample copyright (c) Simon. All rights reserved.
> >   Available under the GPL and under the IETF licensing regime
> > defined in
> > RFC XXXX
> >
> > would be - once all we're talking about here is finished. Again - I
> > think. Not sure.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >                      Harald
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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