[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: #1515: Incoming 5.6: "Contributor" used with 2 meanings
Harald - that description is one of an intentionally weak transfer process
and its the WG Chair's responsibity to see that this WG's actions meet all
legal requirements, this is not a technical thing that is being vetted its
the contractual structure for participation in the IETF and that brings
liability into the mix (whether you like it or not).
More inline below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <simon at josefsson.org>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: #1515: Incoming 5.6: "Contributor" used with 2 meanings
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:
That solves the moral attribution issue better, thanks.
The economical rights are unclear, though, especially under the
work-for-hire situation.
The copyright on text/code written by the Indirect Contributor may be
owned by a company or organization. How are the rights to such material
released to the IETF?
In the same way as the release of rights to text/code written by the
Direct Contributor:
We believe the Direct Contributor's statement that he has the right to
grant that license.
IETF takes responsibility for having placed an incompetent process in place
---------------------
Then the IETF takes the responsibility for believing a 'piece of submitted
email without any authentication or more than the assertion of the
submitter'. My feeling is that this pretty clearly makes the IETF
'responsible' then when it is lied to because the IPR rights process assures
to those other parties that the IETF's diligence is sufficient when its not.
Again that's the case whether you like it or not Harald.
Secrety negotiations create another liability
---------------------
This has evidently already happened and it was resolved by a secret
negotiation between the IETF's counsel and the submitters. The problem is
that this secret negotiation to get the original rights properly submitted
constitutes an act of Fraud by the IETF against those other parties in that
WG who would have damage claims against the IETF for its screwing up the IP
transfer and then falsely representing to the other WG members and their
sponsor's that the legal transfer of the IP was perfect and complete...
Sorry it is what it is.
Opens another set of claims - this time against other WG members
--------------------
This also opens another set of claims against not the IETF but the other
sponsor's and WG member's involved. As to how, simply ask those Sponsor's
what they require when they license software or IP in any form and whether
they would allow their sponsored parties to work on with imperfect IP
transfers...
Especially we should ask the Sponsor's that "if there are potentially claims
against their derivatives from using IETF protocols when the actions of the
IETF are intentionally negligent in their operations whether they would
continue to allow participation in any form in the IETF???" - I am betting
the answer is NO.
Remember also that since its this WG who is place this stupidity in place,
and that no other IETF members are being asked about this, or whether their
sponsor's will allow them to participate in this, there is an informed
consent issue which hamstrings that any deficiencies that occur in the legal
framework come right back to this group and its members and their sponsors
for 'putting in place' as well as those members of the IESG who supported
the elevation of this into a standards or BCP operating practice.
Sorry its just the way it is AFAICT.
Extra-Liabilities
-------------------
But - hey - there is another issue. That being whether the Sponsor's would
have allowed their agents to work on a protocol that was impacted as such.
In as much its my bet that being lied to like this also opens EVERY OTHER
MEMBER of the WG to litigation as well. The idea that they would have agreed
to 'work on that protocol' when the IPR were being withheld is a serious
flaw in the IETF's wetdream about whether a simple email release works.
Proof?
-------
The funny part of this is when an officer of the IETF admits that this has
already happened and it was negotiated to a release state which was never
disclosed to those sponsor's involved. The IETF is creating a public record
that it essentially "Hid" that it negotiated a settlement for IP that it
fraudulently misrepresented as its own property to coerce those other
sponsor's to allow their sponsored parties to participate.
That's clearly a fraud which benefits the IETF alone and one which make the
IETF and the management of the IETF guilty of IP frauds one would think
under any number of existing US Court precedents Harlad.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
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