RE: Improvements to section 5.{1,2} in outbound-rights

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On 5. desember 2006 11:48 -0800 Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> 
wrote:

> Through all of this discussion, I'm still left wondering whether the
> Academic Free License (AFL 3.0), www.rosenlaw.com/AFL3.0.htm (also
> published at www.opensource.org as an OSI-approved license), would
> satisfy the IETF policies? Can I contribute both code and text to IETF
> under AFL 3.0?

This document is about stating what the IETF wishes to grant, not about 
picking the mechanism to do it.

You're a lawyer, so you can give informed advice about whether the AFL as 
an inbound grant of rights to the IETF, or as an outbound license from the 
IETF, would allow the IETF to do what the -outbound document says is the 
IETF's desire....

> Regarding contributors' commitment to specific outbound rights, see AFL
> 3.0 section 1(c). I would like it if something like AFL 3.0 also served as
> IETF's outbound license.
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
>                 Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:44 AM
> > To: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Improvements to section 5.{1,2} in outbound-rights
> >
> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> > > How about the following?
> >
> > >  5.1.  Rights Granted for Reproduction of RFCs
> > >    It has long been IETF policy to encourage copying and distribution
> > >    of RFCs in full.  This permits wide dissemination of the material,
> > >    without risking loss of context or meaning.  The IETF wishes to
> > >    continue to permit anyone to make full copies and translations of
> > >    RFCs, and to distribute them to anyone.
> >            ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
> > Diff mark by me, please correct me if I missed another diff.  It's okay,
> > maybe a bit verbose, but less chances to get it wrong and split hairs.
> >
> >
> > > 5.2.  Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions
> > >    There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit the quoting
> > >    without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions and
> > >    distributing the quotes.  Such excerpts may be of any length and in
> > >    any context.  Translation of quotations is also to be permitted.
> >                    ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> > At some point it will be too verbose, when folks desperately look for a
> > "trap", and there is none.  You could also say that any "quotation of
> > translations" are permitted, translating pieces of text outside of their
> > complete context can be difficult.
> >
> > > What remain is the current last sentence of 5.2:
> > >    All such quotations SHOULD be attributed properly to the IETF and
> > >    the IETF document from which they are taken.
> >
> > > I wonder whether lawyers will understand the fine precision intended
> > > by that SHOULD?
> >
> > Lawyers not understanding a 2119-SHOULD probably can't help with this
> > job.  The SHOULD IMO only means that there can be compelling reasons to
> > violate it, e.g. you can post grep- or diff-results without annotations,
> > you can write "be liberal" without a link RFC 1123, and you can talk
> > about "features with a high astonishment factor" without a link to REXX
> > and Mike Cowlishaw - IIRC in an IAB document Harald wrote "traditional".
> >
> > >  How about:
> > >    All such quotations SHOULD be attributed properly to the IETF and
> > >    the IETF document from which they are taken.  That means that there
> > >    should be a strong recommendation that all such quotations be
> > >    attributed, but it should not be a legal requirement for being able
> > >    to quote a document.
> >
> > Actually "cannot be".  Otherwise the lawyers could send us back an essay
> > about "fair use" that nobody (excl. lawyers) can decode.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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