Dean Anderson wrote:
Yes and because Vint Cerf was allowed to publish his XMas I-D they would have legal trouble for saying they wouldn't publish it too. But lets get back to the issue of the failure of the current Intellectual Property conveyance model that NoteWell provides. The submission of the lyric of Yellow Submarine clearly document's that third-party genesis can and does occur against third-party controlled IP's - so how do we deal with this? - lets explore that question here.Hahaha. You should submit a properly formatted ID with these lyrics as an individual submission. ;-) --Dean
That said - the first step is properly defining the problem and the issue is simple - by its very definition "NoteWell is a process program which assigns the rights to the core IP and all representations of said IP which are uttered through IETF Mailing Lists and at IETF Meetings". The problem is then with NoteWell's definition is that a person or email server can utter submissions (technology statements) about specific Intellectual Properties (IP) which are observations or consulting evaluations.
Likewise they also could be "what-if blue-sky conversations" about some derivative of that IP. What this NoteWell issue applies to is then those words. The failing is that under NoteWell alone those words may be a story about some IP and not actually convey the ownership of that IP, but rather the licensing of the story about that core IP.
What is important there is the idea that this doesn't give the IETF the legal (i.e. court sustainable) rights to produce or relicense ANYTHING other than the story about the underlying IP and the IETF and its Trust have misrepresented that it in fact does through the "Relicensing Provisions" of BCP79 and its successors. It also puts the Trust in a place where it becomes the direct beneficiary of fraud by wire when the IETF represented that it does in fact own the IP Rights to relicense the use of submitted IP's under the BCP 78/79 and their successor's models.
What's the solution? Simple,(1) the first step is acknowledging that the 'rights to use the actual protocol' specification in a product are not properly licensed from the current intake model. (2) Then face that a simple reprinting agreement is not enough and because topics in IETF submissions include things like "what's wrong with protocol XYZ" and this means that that document while discussing some other protocol, doesn't license the use of that protocol to anyone. If that other protocol happens to be a RFC2026 based filing this complicates the relicensing of the new work since the previous work is constrained by RFC2026...
and finally get that(3) What is needed is a specific release against the use of the IP in the specification to create a SW or other product to test or prove interoperability with that IETF Standard (and Standard Candidate) nand that this may be done in concert with the IETF or as an independent effort.
Also I would suggest the Amending of the NoteWell Definition to something like the following:
------------------------------------It is in the best interest of the IETF to own any and all new genesis and IP processed through its mailing lists and meetings and so all parties using those services agree that the IETF will own those properties where its possible for this conveyance model to function properly. Where third-party analysis or third-party works in general are submitted through that same process, those works are covered under NoteWell to the extent that they are new genesis. In instances where consulting analysis is performed on existing IP the analysis itself shall constitute a separate derivative work and not contain specific rights which the IETF Trust may convey beyond the copyright against the reprinting of those words themselves.
Todd Glassey
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, TSG wrote:Dean Anderson wrote:Inline: On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, TSG wrote:Endre Jarraux Walls wrote:Thats exactly what it means. The issue is the legal-jurisdiction of the entity who is sponsoring the license language. That language would be constrained by US Law's since the IETF's processes are constrained by US Federal and State Corporate Law.Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF, regardless of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?If for instance the IETF were to take the copyright statement off of the works then they could be usable everywhere. Or one would think that the FCPA (foreign corrupt practices act) might also figure in but hey - I am not a lawyer so what do I know.Todd GlasseySo lets take this a step farther.Lets me submit something I was thinking about to the list.. Its the lyrics to the song Yellow Submarine... and let me ask this really silly question - who owns that song now? the IETF?... Anyone talk with Lord McCartney's Barrister about that yet?So then what does NoteWell really mean then? ------------------------- In the town where I was born, Lived a man who sailed to sea, And he told us of his life, In the land of submarines, So we sailed on to the sun, Till we found the sea of green, And we lived beneath the waves, In our yellow submarine, We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine, We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine. And our friends are all aboard, Many more of them live next door, And the band begins to play. (Trumpets play) We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine, We all live a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine. (Full speed ahead, Mr. Parker, full speed ahead! Full speed over here, sir! Action station! Action station! Aye, aye, sir, fire! Captin! Captin!) As we live a life of ease Every one of us is all we need,(is all we need) Sky of blue, and sea of green,(sky of blue and sea of green) in our yellow(in our yellow) submarine.(submarine) ( Hahaha! ) We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine, We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine. (fading) We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine, We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg