RE: IETF Trust FAQ

Larry,

I think that you are attempting to find ambiguity in the
language
of RFC 3978 when there is none.

Section 3.3.a deals with the licenses that Contributors
grant to IETF participants with respect to their
Contributions
(which are mostly text, but can also be code).  These
licenses enable the standards development and publication
work
that is coordinated through IETF.  To the extent that a
patent
license may be required to conduct IETF standards
development
work (a proposition that is debatable), such a license is
granted.
That's why 3.3.a says "under all intellectual property
rights in the Contribution".  However, if a license is
granted
under patents under 3.3.a, it is very limited and only
extends to standards
development work within the IETF.

The licenses under 3.3.a (other than 3.3.a.E, see below)
do NOT grant any rights to implement IETF standards 
in products.  IETF Contributors are NOT required to grant
patent
licenses to implementers.  This has always been IETF's
policy, and
there is no ambiguity here.

Section 3.3.a.E covers a special case in which code is
embedded
in IETF documents.  Under this license, code can be
extracted
and used.  However, there is an explicit exception in the
license:
it does not include a license under patents.  That exception
was
included for very reason stated above.  IETF does not
require
participants to grant patent licenses to implementers. 
Someone who
extracts code from an RFC for use in a product is an
implementer,
and that implementer does not automatically get a license
under
the patent.  Arguing that the implementer gets a patent
license
is contrary to both the express wording of 3.3.a.E, as well
as 
IETF's general policy relating to patent licenses.

Finally, please note that these policies were formed prior 
to the establishment of the IETF Trust.  I don't understand
why
the Trust is being criticized here, or why the Trust is
expected
to do something different that what's stated in 3978.

Of course, the community is free to change the rules as it
desires.
If a change to the above structure is desired by the
community,
such a change would not be difficult to implement.  However,
I think
it is disingenuous to claim that ambiguities exist in 3978
and
that these ambiguities support an argument for change.

Jorge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosenrosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:40 PM
> To: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: IETF Trust FAQ
> 
> 
> At Harald's suggestion that others "speak for
themselves," 
> I'll speak up. I
> agree with Simon. I'd feel more comfortable about this

> working group punting
> Simon's issues and passing them to the IETF Trust if I
had 
> some assurance
> that they were going to solve these IP policy problems
in a 
> public way with
> public input. 
> 
> I do not believe that the current draft of RFC 3978
solves 
> the problems
> Simon and others have identified. For the record, I'm
copying 
> an earlier
> private thread with Simon. I copied Brian and Jorge but
they haven't
> responded. So I'm going to copy it to the full list
below. We 
> might as well
> discuss these problems now rather than have to do it
right a 
> second time.
> 
> I wish the IETF Trust lawyers who promise to help that

> organization draft
> its policies were here now to help us, because our
current 
> policies aren't
> sufficient to do the job.
> 
> /Larry Rosen
> 
> *********************************
> 
> Thanks, Simon. I specifically wrote to you and Brian
directly 
> so that I can
> get to the gist of the problem you wrote about without

> in-channel "noise."
> 
I look forward to Brian's response. What I ultimately say 
> publicly on
> the list depends upon what I learn from you two.
> 
> I agree, though, with the fundamental premise you
raised in 
> your earlier
> email, and so I suggested that contributors to IETF
should be 
> given express
> notice and assurance that their contributions are
intended to be
> *sublicensed to the public by the IETF Trust* in the
form of published
> specifications compatible with both open source and 
> proprietary licenses.
> 
> > Stating your opinion of whether the RFC 3978
license gives third
> > parties the right to extract and use code portions
from RFCs to the
> > IPR WG list would be useful.  I think it is
problematic from several
> > views, but Brian and the IETF Trust appear to be
pushing for an
> > interpretation that says "there is no problem
here, go away".
> 
> RFC 3978 states that "[the] rights addressed in
this document 
> fall into the
> following categories: rights to make use of contributed
material...." 
> 
> The words "make" and "use" come
from patent law, not copyright law.
> Copyright addresses the relatively trivial problem of
copying 
> expressive
> code into a computer's memory but it doesn't affect
what 
> happens when you
> press start. For that you may need patent rights.
> 
> We can't wish that demon to go away by saying simply,
as we 
> currently do in
> RFC 3978, section 3.3(a)(E), that the licenses
"granted under 
> this paragraph
> (E) shall not be deemed to grant any right under any
patent...." Every
> modern open source and proprietary license contains a
clear 
> statement of
> patent rights being granted along with distribution of
the 
> copyrighted code
> so that licensees know what they may make or use.
> 
> This problematic statement in 3.3(a)(E) is apparently 
> contradicted by the
> last words of the leading paragraph 3.3(a), which
refers to "all
> intellectual property rights in the Contribution."
Certainly 
> that includes
> patents?
> 
> I'm confused by the reluctance to address patents
head-on in 
> this document.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> P.S. Since I am stating my views of legal language and

> effect, I will now
> copy Jorge.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simonjosefsson.org]
> > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:47 PM
> > To: lrosenrosenlaw.com
> > Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'
> > Subject: Re: IETF Trust FAQ
> > 
> <snip>
> > 
> > See RFC 3978 section
> > 3.3 of <http://www.i
etf.org/rfc/rfc3978.txt>. 
> >  
> > If I understand correctly, the current goal is not
to write legal
> > text, but to document the IETF's intention, and
let the IETF Trust
> > craft the legal text, with help from lawyers.  I
don't expect the
> > IETF community to be able to influence or review
the end 
> result.  I'd
> > love to be wrong on that, or see the process
change to 
> something more
> > open and something that have any chance of
resulting in a workable
> > outcome, but there seem to be no interest in
exploring any options.
> > 
> > Stating your opinion of whether the RFC 3978
license gives third
> > parties the right to extract and use code portions
from RFCs to the
> > IPR WG list would be useful.  I think it is
problematic from several
> > views, but Brian and the IETF Trust appear to be
pushing for an
> > interpretation that says "there is no problem
here, go away".
> > 
> > /Simon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 

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

RE: IETF Trust FAQ

Thread: RE: IETF Trust FAQ