- agenda bashing
. Randy asked if Scott's draft deals with rights granted by the IETF
. Scott said "almost no"
- ietf trust
. iaoc chair presented briefly on ietf trust (more at plenary tomorrow)
- Harald introduced his slides
- Scott Bradner's slides
. Scott replied to Randy's question on Scott's draft dealing with 'outbound
rights' by saying that his draft only dealt with 'outbound rights' in one
place, and that was on legends on RFCs (section 2.3)
. Sam Hartman: if this document is adopted, can the ietf grant the right to grant
the right to create derivitive works (transitively grant)?
. Answer: yes
. David Black: SDOs operate in hierarchy, so we may need to grant rights to
ANSI, ISO, IEEE
. Scott suggests removing 'case by case basis' from his document
. Brian: so we would get the right to issue blanket rights?
. Scott: yes
. Randy asks about the value of removing the phrase
. Scott says it allows the ietf to decide in the future what to do without
limitation
. Harald says it can cut down on paperwork
. David: is there any effect, should IETF cease to exist, will trust cease
to exist?
. Answer: no
- Harald introduced Question 1
. Scott Brim: if we get this right it remains case-by-case
. Scott: taking the words out does not mean we grant blanket
. Randy: could consider leaving 'case-by-case' in
. Harald: strongly oppose this, want to first consider
. Sam: Agrees with Harald, agrees with Scott
. ?? : ietf needs this right, not limited by case-by-case
. Ted Hardie: Can I argue that it is appropriate to publish RFCs in both cases,
where the author choose to grant that right where the author chooses not to.
. Ted: We can ask for this right, but in the case where we do not, the
derivers need to get that right directly from the author.
. Sam: it will be a mess if some standards allow, and some do not
. Scott: we need to have the right in all standards-track documents
. Ling: Author needs to know what ietf intends to do, blanket rights are
very different from case-by-case
. Pekka: do we believe the ietf will be responsible in giving out this right?
. Ted: Think of the documents we co-publish with ITU; If we tried to grant
transitive rights to those, or get these rights to those, we'd be S.O.L.
. Scott: only doc we did with ITU (megaco) was a mess; we said 'never again'
- Harald calls question
. Several hands go up on first part, none on second, only one or two on
third. Harald declares rough consensus on authors granting ietf right to
grant rights to third parties
- Simon presents his slides
- David Black presented his slides (on "field of use")
. Sam: as an implementor, my code is used in open-source, this won't work
for them; they need ability to fix bugs in code
. Scott: question of intent: what does 'change text of rfc' mean?
. David: an implementation of rfc can change things in support of the rfc
. ???: I implement an rfc and want to publish a doc 'how I did it'
. David: different: take rfc, change, publish as rfc
The discussion went on for a few minutes more, but then the meeting slot ended.
The issue of outgoing IPR was definitely "take it to the list".
|