[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 5378 Procedures Fix
On 2009-03-12 11:50, Ray Pelletier wrote:
...
> I reviewed draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work and found
>
> 10. Acknowledgements
>
> Significant amounts of text have been adapted from
> [I-D.chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout]. The authors of that draft
> have agreed to their text being submitted under the IETF's current
> copyright provisions.
>
> Meaning, I assume, that the authors have provided a 5378 license in
> their document
> to the IETF Trust. Such license of course could be used by others for
> their docs.
Meaning that I have email from them saying "go ahead". Given that IETF
contributions mainly occur on-line, that is enough for me to feel confident
in applying RFC5378 boilerplate.
I'd be happy to learn that they've also signed a 5378 license, as
I asked them to, but it doesn't really matter to me.
>
> What is the process by which these licenses are to be identified and
> recorded?
> In other words how do we get from an Acknowledgment to an online 5378
> License Registry?
Well, how about making a generic 5378 license sign-up an option when
either submitting an I-D or registering for an IETF meeting? After a few months,
you'd capture most current active contributors that way. And an email sweep
of all RFC authors would capture some more (and a lot of bounce messages).
We do need to get away from ink signatures though.
Brian
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 2009-03-12 10:22, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>>> Brian & Harald
>>>
>>> I have heartburn with the proposed 'fix' to the pre-5378 problem. It
>>> has to to with the level of effort
>>> by Contributors and record keeping required to implement the fix.
>>>
>>> 2. Procedure
>>>
>>> Definition: In this document, the phrase "prior to RFC 5378" refers
>>> to IETF Contributions made before November 10, 2008, when [RFC5378]
>>> became effective.
>>>
>>> Contributors of Internet-Drafts that contain substantial text
>>> originally contributed to the IETF by other persons prior to RFC 5378
>>> have certain responsibilities.
>>>
>>> o They must identify the source of the substantial text that their
>>> contribution includes.
>>>
>>> I agree with this. The Trust cannot grant the license to a 3rd party
>>> without being able to identify the
>>> 5378 licensors and the Contributors are in the best position to identify
>>> the sources.
>>>
>>> o They, or people helping them, must make reasonable efforts to
>>> obtain or verify the agreement of the original contributors to
>>> their text being contributed under the terms of RFC 5378.
>>>
>>> I disagree with this. Of the last 5,000 plus RFCs I understand there
>>> have been fewer than 5 occasions
>>> when the IETF has provided the right to modify an RFC outside the IETF
>>> standards process. I would shift the
>>> burden to the Trust to 'make reasonable efforts to obtain or verify the
>>> agreement of the original contributors to
>>> their text being contributed under the terms of RFC 5378', rather than
>>> have the Contributors do it, on an as-needed basis.
>>> If the Contributors have to do it, it will result in hard or soft copy
>>> licenses to be provided to the Trust on a document by document basis
>>> or the Trust will wind up soliciting broadly for licenses, perhaps even
>>> setting up an online 5378 License Registry for
>>> the 11,000 plus authors, and/or n # of companies of the 5,000 RFCs.
>>> Whether the Contributors do it and or the Trust, it is
>>> way too much effort to meet the requirement for an occasional request.
>>>
>>> o If such agreement cannot be obtained within a reasonable time,
>>> they must instead include a special disclaimer in the Internet-
>>> Draft. The current text of the disclaimer will be specified by
>>> the IETF Trust's "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents",
>>> originally located at
>>> <http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html>. The initial
>>> version of this text is in Appendix A below.
>>>
>>> The Contributor should just include the provision as a matter of course,
>>> unless they meet exceptions
>>> defined in the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents".
>>>
>>> o In either case, the Internet-Draft must contain acknowledgement
>>> and precise citation of the contributions concerned. If the
>>> disclaimer is included, the acknowledgement should also identify
>>> which previous contributors contributed which text, unless the
>>> text concerned is scattered throughout the document.
>>>
>>> Concur.
>>>
>>> Before approving a document containing material originally
>>> contributed to the IETF prior to RFC 5378, for which permission to
>>> contribute it under RFC 5378 has not been obtained, the IESG must be
>>> satisfied that reasonable effort has been made to obtain the
>>> necessary rights.
>>>
>>> I would delete as unnecessary if changed as suggested.
>>>
>>> If such is the case, the resulting document, and
>>> any IETF Last Call message concerning the document, must contain the
>>> special disclaimer and acknowledgement defined above.
>>>
>>> The IESG should ensure the pre-5378 material has been properly
>>> identified
>>> and that the document contains the 'special disclaimer and
>>> acknowledgement
>>> defined above'.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IESG and the IETF Trust, in collaboration, must provide a public
>>> register of documents prior to RFC 5378 for which the rights required
>>> by RFC 5378 have been provided retroactively, and a public register
>>> of rights holders who have retroactively provided such rights for all
>>> their IETF contributions prior to RFC 5378.
>>>
>>> Clearly the 5378 rights as and when requested by the IETF Trust and
>>> granted
>>> by the authors must be publicly disclosed.
>>>
>>> The IETF Trust is requested to ensure that its policies and licenses
>>> allow for documents including the disclaimer.
>>>
>>> Concur
>>>
>>> Ray Pelletier
>>> Taking off my Trustee and IAD hats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>