Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
"Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The IETF works with individual contributors, full stop.
Good, maybe the BCP 78 legalese about some contributors
"representing an organization" can be removed or trimmed
or clarified.
I share this concern, and this messages uses the ISSUE-protocol to
register this as a last call comment (the WGLC lasts until Dec 17 if I'm
not mistaken).
The most critical text appears to be in section 5.3:
To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected
by copyright or other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each
named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sponsored by (if any) grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
royalty-free, world-wide sublicensable right and license to the IETF
Trust under all such copyrights and other rights in the Contribution:
This text appear to me to ask that a Contributor's organization (if any)
directly grant rights to the IETF.
It is not asking that the organization makes a statement. It is asking
that the contributor makes the statement (and that it's implicit in
the contribution).
That's not how I read the quoted text. The text appear to me to say
that the "organization he or she represents" grants some rights. If the
intention is that the Contributor is the one granting those rights, and
not the organization, the text seems incorrect.
This can happen by the organization saying to the contributor "we
don't care, we won't claim rights in what you are doing in this
context", or by the organization saying to the contribution "you can
give away this license on behalf of us". It's the contributor that
makes the commitment to the IETF.
Typically in the US the organization owns the copyright under the
work-for-hire doctrine. Still, I agree that it should be the
contributor's responsibility to have negotiated this issues with his
organization.
If Brian is correct and the IETF do not work with organizations
directly, but only individual contributors, the legal text that requires
organizations to grant rights to the IETF appears wrong to me.
It's fair warning to the contributor - if he doesn't hold all rights
himself, he has to be in the clear with his sponsoring organization.
Right.
Section 5.1 also contains:
By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the
Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to have read
and understood the rules and requirements set forth in this document.
Each Contributor is deemed, by the act of submitting a Contribution,
to enter into a legally-binding agreement to comply with the terms
and conditions set forth in this document, on his or her own behalf
and on behalf of the organization the Contributor represents or is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sponsored by (if any), when submitting the Contribution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My suggestion solution is to rephrase the text to say that Contributors
assure that they have the permission of the organization they represent
to share the contribution with the IETF. This would be consistent with
only working with individuals rather than external organizations.
That is what I believe the text is saying now.
The text in section 5.1 is less clear, so it could be argued either way,
but the text in section 5.3 seems to clearly say something else.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg