Re: Lawyer's advice on boilerplate in RFCs and I-Ds

John C Klensin <john-ietfjck.com> writes:

> This clearly does not have any IPR implications are
all, since the
> IETF doesn't own nearly enough trademark rights to
prevent posting of
> an I-D with "rfc" and some digits imbedded in
its name.

Jorge said the Trust copyright notice covers "the RFC
numbering
series".  See question 2 on <http://trustee.i
etf.org/24.html>.  What
does that mean?  I read it to mean something like you
suggest here,
although I also realize that a short word and digits is not
creative
enough to be copyrightable.

I believe it would be useful to clarify exactly what the
copyright
notice means.  In particular:

  * What does copyright on a "result of collective
work" means?  As
    far as I understood, all contributors retain their
individual
    bits, and the collective work is a combined work of
their
    individual bits.  (I have a vague memory that a
"combined work" is
    copyrightable in the US, but not so elsewhere.  Further,
not all
    RFCs is the product of "combined work", which
should be clarified
    as well.)

  * What does copyright on "the RFC numbering
series" mean?  Do the
    Trust claims that a phrase 'rfc4711' is copyrighted by
the Trust?

/Simon

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

b

--On Thursday, March 22, 2007 08:36 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<simonjosefsson.org> wrote:

> I believe it would be useful to clarify exactly what
the
> copyright notice means.

I agree, although I fear that the answer may be "very
little", 
since Jorge has told use that such notices are not in
general 
useful outside the US.   At least, I think that is what he
told 
us.

> In particular:
>
>   * What does copyright on a "result of collective
work"
> means?  As     far as I understood, all contributors
retain
> their individual     bits, and the collective work is
a
> combined work of their     individual bits.  (I have a
vague
> memory that a "combined work" is    
copyrightable in the US,
> but not so elsewhere.  Further, not all     RFCs is
the
> product of "combined work", which should be
clarified     as
> well.)

Since the RFC editing process includes the addition of text
and 
removal of other text and thereby changes the work from the
last 
pre-RFC I-D, I would imagine that every RFC would be a
combined 
work except, possibly, those created from beginning to end
by 
the RFC Editor team.

>   * What does copyright on "the RFC numbering
series" mean?
> Do the     Trust claims that a phrase 'rfc4711' is
copyrighted
> by the Trust?

Beats me.  If read in English, it would assume it would
assert 
copyright on a hypothetical document whose content was
   RFC 1
   RFC 2
   RFC 3
     ...
   RFC aleph-null
Interesting, but not useful.  I can't guess what it might
mean 
in legalese, but I'm pretty sure the concept of how to
number 
RFCs isn't subject to copyright.

     john


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <simonjosefsson.org>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietfjck.com>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobodyxyzzy.claranet.de>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Lawyer's advice on boilerplate in RFCs and
I-Ds


> John C Klensin <john-ietfjck.com> writes:
>
>> This clearly does not have any IPR implications are
all, since the
>> IETF doesn't own nearly enough trademark rights to
prevent posting of
>> an I-D with "rfc" and some digits
imbedded in its name.
>
> Jorge said the Trust copyright notice covers "the
RFC numbering
> series".  See question 2 on <http://trustee.i
etf.org/24.html>.  What
> does that mean?  I read it to mean something like you
suggest here,
> although I also realize that a short word and digits is
not creative
> enough to be copyrightable.

Not necessarily - the Derivative Rights may in fact give
some of this away. 
Likewise, if a technological concept is vetted publicly on
the IETF mailing 
list that IP is the property of the IETF totally as far as I
can tell...

>
> I believe it would be useful to clarify exactly what
the copyright
> notice means.  In particular:
>
>  * What does copyright on a "result of collective
work" means?  As
>    far as I understood, all contributors retain their
individual
>    bits, and the collective work is a combined work of
their
>    individual bits.  (I have a vague memory that a
"combined work" is
>    copyrightable in the US, but not so elsewhere. 
Further, not all
>    RFCs is the product of "combined work",
which should be clarified
>    as well.)
>
>  * What does copyright on "the RFC numbering
series" mean?  Do the
>    Trust claims that a phrase 'rfc4711' is copyrighted
by the Trust?

It (the phrase "copyright on the RFC numbering
series") refers to a 
copyright on the document that created the RFC processes and
framework as 
far as I can tell... Jorge?

The IETF may also want to file 'process' (aka utility)
patents against it's 
processes as well to protect those aspects of its larger IP
dilemma.

>
> /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