#1198 Implementation = derivative work? (Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...)

--On 10. februar 2006 07:53 -0800 todd glassey 
<todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net> wrote:

> 2) Whether the IETF's standards process requires an
derivative release for
> those implementing the mandatory interoperable
instances of the protocol
> description to qualify for the standards milestones.

Filed as #1198.

I believe the discussion has shown a clear consensus that
the answer is 
"no". If anyone (except Todd) wishes to call for
a poll on the issue, we 
can do that, but I haven't seen anyone else (lawyer or
non-lawyer) argue 
that there is a real issue here.

                          Harald



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

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> --On 10. februar 2006 07:53 -0800 todd glassey
> <todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> 2) Whether the IETF's standards process requires
an derivative release for
>> those implementing the mandatory interoperable
instances of the protocol
>> description to qualify for the standards
milestones.
>
> Filed as #1198.
>
> I believe the discussion has shown a clear consensus
that the answer
> is "no". If anyone (except Todd) wishes to
call for a poll on the
> issue, we can do that, but I haven't seen anyone else
(lawyer or
> non-lawyer) argue that there is a real issue here.

I'd like to make sure I understand this question better.  I
think I
understand your interpretation of it (the subject explain it
succinctly), but I'm not so sure I understand what Todd was
saying.

I believe an implementation would only be a derivative work
(in the
copyright sense) when it contains copyrighted material from
the RFC.

Some RFCs doesn't seem to be implementable unless you
include material
from the RFC in your implementation, in some way or another.
 For
example, you can't implement IDNA without using the
StringPrep tables.
I'd suppose the same would hold with some other things too,
perhaps
including ASN.1 schemas and MIBs.

If my understanding is correct, I believe the answer would
depend on
the RFC.  The answer would be "yes" for RFC
3454.

However, if Todd is asking, which it seems like, whether the
IETF
standards process require the release of these rights, the
answer is
certainly "no".  RFC 2026 doesn't say anything
like that, from what I
can tell.  That is likely a flaw in that document though. 
Perhaps
Todd meant that if the IETF standards process _SHOULD_
require the
release of these rights or not?  I didn't understand.

Anyway, this seem related to my issue of what license the
IETF should
grant third parties on Contributions received and published
by the
IETF.  If it is required to have certain rights to be able
to
implement RFCs, those rights should arguable be granted by
the IETF to
third parties, in the license statement.

Thanks,
Simon

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

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
...
>>>2) Whether the IETF's standards process
requires an derivative release for
>>>those implementing the mandatory interoperable
instances of the protocol
>>>description to qualify for the standards
milestones.
>>
>>Filed as #1198.
>>
>>I believe the discussion has shown a clear consensus
that the answer
>>is "no". If anyone (except Todd) wishes
to call for a poll on the
>>issue, we can do that, but I haven't seen anyone
else (lawyer or
>>non-lawyer) argue that there is a real issue here.
> 
> 
> I'd like to make sure I understand this question
better.  I think I
> understand your interpretation of it (the subject
explain it
> succinctly), but I'm not so sure I understand what
Todd was saying.
> 
> I believe an implementation would only be a derivative
work (in the
> copyright sense) when it contains copyrighted material
from the RFC.

That is a different matter and one we do have to resolve.

What is quite clear, as a matter of common sense, is that
the
reason we publish specifications is so that people can
implement them (it's called "running code" I
believe).
It's also a matter of fact, because I checked recently for
another reason, that there doesn't seem to be any BCP that
actually says this. Well, BCP 95 does say:

    The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality,
relevant
    technical and engineering documents that influence the
way people
    design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to
make the
    Internet work better.  These documents include protocol
standards,
    best current practices, and informational documents of
various kinds.

That makes it prety clear but it doesn't actually say:

    The IETF publishes specifications with the intention
that people
    should implement them.

I wouldn't mind seeing that in 3978bis.

     Brian


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