[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Minutes from Chicago
First draft attached. Please comment ASAP.
Harald
Intellectual Property Rights Working Group (IPR) Minutes
Meeting: IETF 69, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Location: Red Lacquer room, 1740 - 1950 US-CT
Chair: Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
Minutes: Scott Bradner <sob at harvard.edu>
Version: 2
==================================================================
These minutes have been reformatted by HTA to follow
ION-agenda-and-minutes, version of 2007-03-16.
1. Agenda bashing
Agenda was approved as published:
1740: Welcome, scribe selection, agenda bashing
1750: Outgoing document: Open issues from WG Last Call
- Use of MUST, SHOULD to indicate requirements
- Code "used in any way desired" - more explicit text about copyleft
or patent license issues?
- Other issues?
Hum on acceptance of the -outgoing document, with fixes as identified.
1820: Incoming document: Issues
- Software licenses: How do we ensure that the IETF Trust is in a
position to grant the rights desired in -outgoing, and are there cases
where that is not true, but publication is desirable?
- Other issues?
1850: End of meeting, unless discussion shows that the second hour is needed.
2. Resolved issues
Moved issue of copyright in IDs (#1212) to open
Moved issue of multiple copyrights in RFCs (#1282) to open
Consensus in room that the other issues have been resolved: #1166,
1167, 1168, 1169, 1175, 1199, 1237, 1246, 1337, 1400
Consensus in the room that punted issues were reasonably punted:
#1273, 1338, 1339 - all with "details left to the IETF trust".
3. Outgoing document
3.1 Issue #1499 on use of RFC 2119 terms (MUST)
Brian Carpenter - brought up the topic but does not feel strongly about it
David Black - what does trust think
Jorge Contreras - do not know
Jonne Soininen - trust does not care
Brian Carpenter - I withdraw the issue
The chair called consensus anyway, and the consensus in the room was
to use lower case instead of RFC 2119 terms
3.1 Issue #1500 - software licensing
David Black - report from corporate lawyer that the
current text is not clear - David has sent suggested text to list -
basically, trust should not add software licensing restrictions not
already in the text.
Consensus in room to add this text.
3.2 Issue #1282 - should multiple copyrights be permitted?
David Black - code often comes with copyright - should preserve
Scott Bradner - note that the purpose of the original text was to not
permit this type of thing
David Black - common way to recognize author
Joel Halpren - multiple copyright leads to confusion as
to usability
Jorge Contreras - have concern in RFCs - need to move to
situation where trust is clear about what rights the trust has - also
needed if need to enforce - rather than having to get all authors
together to enforce rights
?? - some places additional copyright statements might be seen
as endorsing moral rights - then in conflict with what the IETF can do
with code
Stephen ?? - may be way to create legal language to make rights
statements in code null & void
David Black - any copyright should be only a one line & purpose
is so that extracts will include the copyright - and that is a good
thing
John Klensin - a problem if we move to a model that the trust
owns doc w/o also having a clear license back to authors for the
published doc
Jorge Contreras does not think it's an issue
Scott Bradner - using a bare copyright statement to give
attribution is a big gun -
David Black - maybe have trust come up with a form for
attribution
John Klensin - bare copyright an issue
Joel Halpren - people can put comments code - we do not need to
have the trust do this
Stephan ?? - issue came up when open source folks contribute
code and want to include the open source copyright
David Black - write a FAQ to say its ok
Consensus call:
Is it ok to have copyright statements in code in RFCs? -
The consensus was no, by a count of roughly 6:1. We do encourage
acknowledgement of authors, also in comments in the code, but not by
putting in copyright statements.
David Black - text on list was to encouragement of
acknowledgements of authors in code
3.3 Issue #1212 - Copyright statements in I-Ds and RFCs
Harald Alvestrand - placing copyright statements where
we do not have copyright does not make sense (e.g. singe author IDs) -
but some IDs that are many authors - but cannot tell difference -
Jorge Contreras - any collection will have a copyright owned by
authors - want trust to have copyright to be able to enforce copyright -
even single author RFC because want to enforce
David Black - boilerplate is IETF owned - that presents a
barrier to creation of fake RFCs
Stephen ?? - if no copyright in ID means that other SDO could
steal and modify text - is it so important to not have copyright in IDs?
Joel Halpern - agree - need to protect IDs, but collaborations
are not collective works under Jorge's description
John Klensin - if we believe that IDs are working documents then
there is no reason to think that the IETF trust can grant rights to IDs
Harald Alvestrand: proposal - do not require copyright in IDs
Scott Bradner - if authors put copyright statement in ID then
they cant claim that this was done w/o their agreement
Brian Carpenter - proposal - maybe require statement in ID that
says "if published copyright IETF Trust"
Jorge Contreras - maybe "portions copyright IETF Trust" - note
to Joel - collaborative work is the same
Russ Housley - republished ETSI doc was very beneficial -
problem comes up from time - and should be able to be done
Harald Alvestrand - consensus call:
We do not require "IETF Trust" copyright notices in I-Ds. We do
require them in RFCs. Consensus (headcount about 12:1).
3.4 Other issues
Henrik Levkowetz - Simon suggested start and end of code markers
- are we discussing this?
Harald Alvestrand - no
3.5 Consensus call for -outgoing readiness for IESG
Harald Alvestrand - is doc ready to go to iesg if above changes
made - consensus yes
John Klensin - should have WGLC on incoming before closing this
doc
Harald Alvestrand - agree - will say issues on outgoing doc are
in scope when last call on incoming
consensus - no known issues, but take it to the list.
4 Incoming rights document
4.1 Software licenses
David Black - problem with software licenses when it conflicts
with licenses grants specified in -incoming, there will be exceptions
and RFC 2026 variance process should be used
Jorge Contreras - trust has right to deal with license
John Klensin - no, that right was withheld from the trust when
IASA was created - don't go there
Harald Alvestrand - if software license is incompatible - talk
to author for a compatible grant
4.2 Should we include text to tell trust to license back to authors
John Klensin - no - it needs to be part of license agreement
author has when submitting
Joel Halpern - -inbound can just say that the license includes
the right for author to make extracts etc - i.e.' imbedded in license
author gives trust - look at SPARC addendum -
http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.html
The room registered general support for the ideals behind the SPARC
addendum, and requested that appropriate language be included in
-incoming.
Consensus call: should IDs have to include "if published as an RFC the text
"copyright IETF Trust will be added" (exact text to be in the
instructions maintained by the Trust)?
Consensus - yes
Consensus call: Should we permit multiple copyright statements for the whole
document?
Consensus to continue with current practice, which requires IAB approval.
5. Next steps
please review documents and comment if you have comments
The chair will hold outgoing until -incoming last call is over.
The chair will then send the two to IESG together
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg