Re: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility

["TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Brian - NOT meeting SPARC as its sits, and trying to reimplement it in an 
IETF Derivative Manner will mean that ANYONE who wants to rely on the IETF's 
ever changiung IP model will have to have theor lawyers make a determination 
as to whether their sponsoree's can actually participate.

What happend in the past where academic's allowed their students, employee's 
and contractors to freely use their Network's for publishing are now 
changing that tune to enforce a SPARC specificality. That means ANYTHING 
that is not SPARC exactly must be reviewed by their counsel's every time 
there is a change in the underlying particpation agreement.

Is that what you are trying to do?

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


> Joel,
>
> On 2007-07-28 19:22, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > Note for clarification, and a suggestion for resolution.
> >
> > The below "requirement" would be a change from what the WG is requesting. 
> > However, given the rules as we are writing them, the trust could make 
> > such a change.  (The fact that I, and even John I suspect, consider that 
> > unlikely does not change the fact that it is legally possible.)
> >
> > Therefore, as I understand this particular issue, what is needed is a 
> > statement in the inbound rights grant that the authors, as a condition of 
> > the inbound rights grant, will be granted the outbound rights to copy / 
> > extract from the RFC.  II believe the authors do not need the rights to 
> > make changes to the RFC, just the rights to copy / extract.
>
> I agree with this proposal.
>
> > Yes, that puts a tiny outbound constraint in inbound.  So be it.  The 
> > actual point (and I think it is a useful result of separating teh two 
> > documents) is that this constraint MUST be an inbound constraint in order 
> > to meet the SPARC conditions.
>
> True, but we don't need to cite SPARC specifically.
>
>    Brian
>
>
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > At 01:00 PM 7/28/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
> > > That is not the interpretation of some of the people involved.
> > > In particular, there is almost nothing in the existing
> > > procedures, and nothing at all in the model contemplated by
> > > "outgoing" that would legally prevent the IETF Trust from
> > > charging an author a small fee for including an RFC on the
> > > author's web site or a fee for making a large, non-code, excerpt.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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