Comments to WG meeting

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:jasextundo.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: Joel M. Halpern; ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments to WG meeting
> 
> 
> >
> >> If I understand Jorge correctly, in his
response quoted by Elwyn
> >> recently, RFC 3978 already give everyone this
permission too, for
> >> code, but due to its unclear wording, at least
I have not 
> been reading
> >> it that way.
> >
> > Here is the right granted for code extracts
that's 
> currently in RFC 3978
> > at 3.3.a(E):
> >
> > 		to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute, 
> modify and
> >           incorporate into other works, for any
purpose 
> (and not limited
> >           to use within the IETF Standards
Process) any 
> executable code
> >           or code fragments that are included in
any IETF 
> Document (such
> >           as MIB and PIB modules), subject to the
requirements of
> >           Section 5
> 
> Right, although the interesting aspect is whether the
rights 
> are granted
> to third parties or only to the IETF and the ISOC. 
Your statement, as
> quoted by Brian/Elwyn, implies that you regard the
'(and not 
> limited to
> use ...)' parenthesis to mean that third parties are
granted 
> those rights.
> 
> The leading text in 3.3.a says that the rights in
(A)-(E) are 
> granted to
> the IETF and ISOC, it doesn't say anything about third
parties.
> 
> I think we need to establish (1) whether RFC 3978 give
third 
> parties the
> above rights, and more importantly, (2) what the
IETF's 
> intentions are in
> this area.
> 

Simon -- you are right about the ambiguity.  The license
language
that I pasted above just grants rights to IETF Participants.
 You have
correctly interpreted RFC 3978.  However, many people point
to the
legend "Distribution of this memo is unlimited"
that appears in most,
if not all, RFCs as indicating that rights extend more
broadly.
This conclusion is drawn not only from this language (which
is admittedly
vague), but also from generally accepted past practice.

This being said, I completely agree with you that the intent
should
be clarified in the next iteration of RFC 3978.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg