[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Updated minutes from Vancouver meeting
I have updated the minutes of the Vancouver meeting with a few spelling
corrections that were sent to me privately.
For completeness, a new version is enclosed. It is also available from the
IETF meeting materials page.
Harald
Intellectual Property Rights WG
Meeting : IETF 70, Tuesday December 4, 2007, 0900-1130
Location : Vancouver, Canada
Chair : Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
Minutetaker: Joel Halpern <jmh at joelhalpern.com>
Version : 1.2
=====================================================================
Formatting notes:
- Resolutions are marked by ***
- Jabber input channeled by someone else is marked as (David Black)
(name in parentheses).
* Administrivia
Review Agenda
Note Well was presented
Comment: Presenting at start of all sessions is a good idea.
That was the effect when we used overhead projector
Agenda Bash - None
* Status
-incoming and -outbound are in last call until December 17 2007.
* incoming issues
list of issues and proposed resolutions.
Issue 1511: (back-license to authors)
John Klensin - would strongly prefer an author retaining rights
rather than a back-license as resolved by 1511, but he can
live with the back-license in the text.
Issue 1515: (meaning of "contributor")
Scott Bradner - the use of the term "contributor" has always been
fuzzy. We do need to fix it.
Bradner - Clarifying which contributor is meant by specific
parts of the language in the document. So we may need to do
more work to get the language right. "Indirect Contributor"
is probably not sufficient.
Scott Brim - We should at least fix the local problem, i.e. make
the local text consistent in its language use even if that
doesn't fix all of the conceptual / global problems of the
term "contributor"
John Klensin - We can not leave this ambiguous in this document.
Discussion of how to fix the text.
(Scott Bradner, Joel Halpern, Stefan Vegan, Harald Alvestrand,
John Klensin.)
Discussion of using alternative terms.
Or using captialization to distinguish different kinds of
contributors
Or putting in qualifications of terms
*** Resolution - let Scott Bradner and Jorge try to come up with a
proposal, and take it to the list.
Agreed that something needs to be done.
Issue 1516:
Scott Bradner - text is to allow retroactive noticing that
rules have been violated. Specific section references
seem to be wrong.
*** Resolution: Make it reference section 5 as a whole.
Barry Leiner channelling (David Black) -
We are missing a work-for-hire issue.
Scott Bradner - Section 3.2 that contributors have the
authority to contribute should cover work for hire.
(David Black) - We need to exlicitly address the work
for hire, not assume it is covered.
*** Resolution: - to be checked with Jorge.
All resolutions will be taken to the list.
Proposed resolutions not minuted above were accepted for now.
Instructions to the Trust
Olaf took an action item to ensure that the IAOC is / will be
aware that they need to issue the various forms of license,
etc...
Scott Brim - "define a textually representation" is
grammatically improper.
Joel Halpern - Yes, I will fix draft
Review of charter items
Suggestion to remove "IPR Advice" document
Updating target dates
* New items--
Possible outcomes for each proposal:
- Good idea, go forward without the working group
- Good idea, become a working group item (possible recharter needed)
æ Bad idea, drop item
* draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds
Presentation by Scott Brim
Caveat - Scott actually disagrees with the proposal
Scott's concern is that using "free" in the document is a bad idea
because "free" means 5 different things, passionately, to
different groups of people.
Phillip Hallam-Baker - Concern is that a particular individual has
claimed the right to define "free", and seems to live in a
different reality than many others of us. Maybe use the term
"open".
John Klensin - Asks if anyone thinks this (IPR work) is fun.
Is this kind of question (updating process to add "free" to
criteria) actually useful.
Scott Bradner - This text is completely useless. DS doesn't get
used enough to matter (newtrack was trying to address that.)
And this change doesn't say anything. Just don't do it.
It isn't a big deal. A few things have encumberance.
Stephan Wenger - Opposed to doing anything. Would render the
standards track mechanism problematic. Objects to both the
original text and the Scott's alternative.
Joel Halpern - I don't see any reason to do this (or any
variation) at all.
Harald Alvestrand - Suggestion to punt to the IESG, based on
the requirement to determine independent implementations.
They can consider the existence of open source as evidence
of acceptable licenses.
John Klensin - Do not create less incentive to move to draft
standard. Imagine the complexity of revising / advancing
for working on stuff that is existing draft / full standard.
Scott Bradner - On the evaluation of licensing process, changing
the rules is indeed not fun. The only time the licensing
issue came up was an appeal. And that appeal never actually
resolved this question. This "code" in ssection 4.1.2 of RFC
2026 has never been executed, but Harald's idea seems to be
covered without text changes.
Scott Brim - Remove this from the table.
*** Resolution - the room overwhelmingly preferred dropping the proposal.
* draft-hallambaker-ipr-patent-harmonization
Presentation by Phillip Hallam-Baker
Discussion of incompatiblity, as described in the draft, between
patent licensing and open software.
General thrust is that clear expectations helps things work.
Ted Hardie - disagrees with assertions about Marid history and
working group history. Suggestion to focus on proposal
rather than on perceptions of history.
Stefan Vegan - Discussing that encumbered patents may still be
useful, particularly if the products matter. And patents
are there for reasons. Pointing out that rewarding patents
may not be unfair.
Phillip - arguing the distinction between the value of the patent
vs the value of the encumbered standard.
John Klensin - Discussion not useful or effective. Addressing
flaws in the base patent system is not the IETFs job.
Terminology causes major issues. Slide uses the term
"standards must be open" while "open standard" usually means
something very different from the slides.
Joel Halpern - Does not like the proposal at all. It does not
actually solve the problem, or help us.
Phillip - commercial cases vs defensive patents are different
Stephan Wenger - No, the different classes are not as cleanly different
as you assert. W3c policy works well in the W3C ecosystem.
That is not the same ecosystem as the IT industry or the IETF.
So following the proposal to simply import the W3C policy into
the IETF would be very disruptive.
Ted Hardie - W3C policy has caused people not to participate in
the W3C. Thus, adoption here would restrict participation.
Overloading the IESG further with managing the patent policy
would also be a bad idea. W3C terms imply a committment to
license if one is a "member".
Scott Bradner - What is the problem statement. Defensive patents
can become offensive patents. We can not know what a patent
attorney and some expert will claim a patent covers.
So this proposal does not solve any known problem.
(David Black) - agrees with Ted that participation in W3C is a
last resort for him because of the policies. And it puts
lawyers in critical path for WG formation.
Phillip - isn't it better to get it solved before WG formation
Scott Bradner - No
Stefan - also No to Phillip. The reality is MUCH more complicated
and things are not knowable at that time. Pre-commitments to
licensing would probably lead to his companies
non-participation.
(David Black) - also no to Phillip's question.
John Klensin - W3C has very different business and membership
model, and the policies from there just won't work here.
The proposal on the table is for a fundamental change in what
the IETF is, and is a bad idea.
*** Resolution - the rooms preference is to drop the proposal.
* draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto
Presentation by Ted Hardie
It is a spec describing one way to do something that is likely to
succeed. It probably still needs some work and separation of
concerns, but it is a valuable piece of advice.
Ted Hardie - suggestion that arranging legal review would be
helpful, so as to confirm that the document achieves its
objectives.
Stephan Wenger - Concerned that if this is used it may not be
possible for commercial vendors to use the technologies.
Sees value in the work, but not as a working group item.
(David Black) - Lawyer time comes with an opportunity cost.
Having said that, he likes the draft and thinks it is
worth the lawyer time. He also thinks it is worth WG time.
Harald - Are the terms, which the document says are good for
open source, actually good for open source? In particular,
there has been some ambiguity about whether reciprocity
actually meets the goal.
Scott Bradner - Supports working group time on it. The idea is
worth work, but the document needs work.
John Klensin - In favor of the general ideas, in favor of legal
review, in favor of people collaborating with Simon, and
probably in favor of eventual RFC publication. But would
strongly prefer to terminate the working group.
Scott Brim - Favors work on the document, on the WG mailing list
but not as a WG item.
Harald - Summarizing administrivia -
If WG item, then it goes forward with WG consensus. Without
WG, it is whatever the author chooses.
We can keep the mailing list open after WG closes.
John Klensin - Suggests using a different mailing list. Also, it
should be faster without a WG.
Exchange about whether the term "free standards" is the right
terminology for the document.
Phillip - concern about the title being "guidelines."
John Klensin - Amateur lawyering has already started.
Resolution - That the work go forward as an indivual item
(some folks thought it should be dropped, about 13 - 0 - 3.)
Further, the room recommends that the IETF should ask the lawyers
to spend some time on reviewing this work.
Discussion of what mailing list should be used for this.
John Klensin - a focussed mailing list for just this issue.
*** Resolution - room supports a focused mailing list for this.
By the end of the meeting, Scott Bradner had already submitted a revision
of the incoming draft.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg