Re: #1400 Opinion poll - question draft

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <simon at josefsson.org>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: #1400 Opinion poll - question draft


> "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> writes:
>
> > My best guess to the "IETF tradition" in this space is that we have
> > been very unclear.
>
> I've not seen anyone claim that the rights which are granted to IETF
> documents were not up to each author to decide.

I have - and I continue to. The rights that the author's submitted under are
controlled by the scope of the rights that the IETF grants end users. The
issue is the derivative uses language which essentially gives away and any
all uses.

Simply put, the lanaguage of the submission does not match the language of
the Granting Portions of BCP 78 and 79 IMHO. The point is blindlingly
simple - lets simply ask the question "what rights does the IETF need to
manage a standards process?" and does that mean that the Standard's use
including the rights to build and deploy a derivative of it are available to
any and all once its submitted to the IETF?

If so then the Submittor has no say in the use of their properties per se
once they are submitted to the IETF.

Todd Glassy

> The author's decision
> can naturally be influenced by others in a working group, and by the
> rules needed by the IETF to be able to publish the documents at all.
>
> > In all cases, as was noted with earlier text, any such choice would
> > have to be up to the working group, not the author.
>
> Hm, can you give a reference or expand on that?
>
> I believe that the one who wrote the text decides the rules for the
> text.
>
> It may be that a working group decides, that if an author demands
> certain special license texts, the author has to be replaced by
> someone else who is willing to use a different license, but that is as
> far as, I believe, working group powers reach.
>
> > But I think that leaving it up to the working group is a bad idea, for
> > several reasons:
> > First and foremost, it means that readers do not know what to expect.
> > Even if we gave the WG a small list of choices 9as small as two) we
> > are introducing confusion.
> > At the same time, asking the WG to discuss such issues is putting a
> > new problem on the WG's plate.  They have plenty to do, and a hard
> > enough time doing it.  Getting into arguments about whether, for their
> > particular situation, some particular restriction is acceptable (or a
> > good idea, or a bad idea) when it is not central to their task is just
> > a bad idea.
>
> Working groups that don't care about this issue don't have to.  It
> only has to be discussed if someone in a WG is interested in
> discussing it.  Otherwise it is up to the document author, as long as
> the rights granted are within what the IETF require.
>
> Some working groups are interested in requiring that their
> specifications meet certain additional IPR restrictions, which doesn't
> hold everywhere in the IETF.  Compare the DNSEXT's desire to not
> consider any proposal to solve key-rollover that is encumbered by any
> patent.  I believe IETF WG's should have the powers to decide things
> like that, on a consensual basis, as long as the IETF have the
> sufficient rights to publish documents and get things done.
>
> /Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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