Minutes IETF IPR meeting 10 July 2006
Steven Bellovin - Chair
Brian Carpenter - Area Director
Brian Holden, PMC-Sierra - Scribe

Changes v:04 to v:06
Scott Bradner (SB)
remove text relating to outbound rights (separated into different doc)
clarified what is normative
removed comment on copyright on collective work
add text that moves the boilerplate text from the RFC to a separate URL (timestamped)
add instruction to the IETF Trust to grant the rights needed to run the IETF process to IETF participants

Discussion
David Black (DB) - link to timestamped boilerplate or place with all boilerplates - SB - place
B Carpenter (BC) - boilerplate is frozen in doc - DB - good
Lucy (LL) - IPR gathered into trust separate doc to say outbound rights - SB - yes
SB - before date that copyright notice is less clear, Jon Postel's assumption was that all docs were freely available and changeable by anyone
SB - ISI-ICAAN contract relates to this also
Jorge Contreras (JC)  - contributors work under 3928 1602 now
SB - gets various questions
SB - in theory, all RFCs can be republished now without getting approval
BC - question as to bis or delta
Bill Fenner (BF) - RFC editor specific section - question as to where exactly the boilerplate
JC - relatively consistent place is good
DB - toolset issue is out of scope of this are - getting the tool to implement this is 
Unknown Questioner - doc needs careful paranoid review
BF - change causes turmoil, making changes is not good - might be bad to have as URL
SB - changes are less visible if done there
BF - worried changes are less visible
LL - some time pressure to get this done - don't push to mailing list
LL - trust needs to act in good faith to get this done
BC - XML2RFC users will be good, but nroff and word users will be out of sync
Adam - in one doc, people did not like that the text might change in the future


Proposed Excerpt Policy
Code excerpts must be modifiable
no limitation to specific purpose
does not object to including in GPLed code, but check with authors

Text excerpts must not be modified
DB - GPL 
HB - viral nature is essential
one dissenter
Tom ? - uneasy about wording - not as clear as it could be - really just staying out of it
HB - some companies do not want anything going into GPLed code, IETF is not one of them
HB - should we retain the policy barring text excerpts must not be modified
SB - unclear question
DB - there were 6 cases from Vancouver
Elwyn Davis (ED) - IAB has been asked about various copyright notices - what is code and what is text?  Also what copyrights can be put in
Eric - quote
Joel - cannot change the text - we have the right to say that 
DB - derived work requires copyright on the original, proposal is that if you are producing something that is clearly derived from the original we have the copyright
JC - derived still subject to copyright
DB - nothing we do can take away from fair use (outside U.S. your mileage may vary)
mostly (not all) agreement in room

Proposed Author Rights Policy
Authors must give certain rights to the IETF (today, via the IETF Trust)
Authors retain other rights
Authors may disclaim their own rights
SB - other copyrights - current strict wording about copyright notices overcorrects the problem and worries the IAB
SB - OK to say that it is in the public domain (not a copyright notice)
DB - allowing arbitrary disclaimers may cause funny things - 
Tom - hard to deal with operationally
Tom - our boilerplates are carefully crafted
HB - do we allow the Creative Common license
BC - authors retaining other rights is information-less 
HB - but is handy
BC - should be a statement that non-standard copyright notices should be reviewed by the ISEG
JC - "disclaim" is a code word - "waive" may be better
JC - in other stds body - generally only have the main copyright notice
SB - except for joint work
HB - longstanding policy of not putting patent notices in docs
DB - "donate" or "Transfer" are good word
DB - want to avoid copyright review, copyright machinery should transfer those rights 
HB - a real mess
SB - we have had situations where the machinery and the text disagree
SB - likes the idea of having an external place
SB - when joint work, two notices is good - otherwise having pointer is good idea
ED - 3 RFCs have extra license attached to a Code excerpt
ED - can you confine a right to a specific part of a doc
ED - another question is do you have to publish the changes
HB - we should not do this as it puts more restrictions
JC - theoretically could handle multiple individual notes - magazines have notice on each photo


Separate Doc for IETF Trust
SB - we should do this to fill the gap
good consensus in room