[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: SanDiegomeetingslot)
Pardon my being a little heated about this, but I was tossed out of this WG
for discussing the 5.5 issues some time ago and its well. Annoying to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>
To: "David B Harrington" <dbharrington at comcast.net>; "'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 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re:
SanDiegomeetingslot)
>
> ----- 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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg