SPARC Author Addendum compatibility

--ON SATURDAY, 28 JULY, 2007 11:09 -0700 LAWRENCE ROSEN
<LROSENROSENLAW.COM> WROTE:

> I AM CONFUSED BY THE ARGUMENTS IN THIS THREAD. THERE
IS
> NOTHING INCONSISTENT BETWEEN "THE IETF TRUST IS
THE SOLE OWNER
> OF THE COPYRIGHT IN A COMPLETE RFC" AND
"AUTHOR RETAINS ALL
> RIGHTS" TO A CONTRIBUTION IN THAT RFC.

NOR, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS ANYONE CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

> AS POINTED OUT
> PREVIOUSLY ON THIS LIST, COPYRIGHT LAW MAKES THAT
POSSIBLE BY
> DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE COPYRIGHT IN A CONTRIBUTION
AND THE
> [DIFFERENT] COPYRIGHT IN A COLLECTIVE OR DERIVATIVE
WORK THAT
> USES THAT CONTRIBUTION.

DITTO.

> THE FAQ FOR THE SPARC AUTHOR ADDENDUM PARTIALLY
CONFIRMS THAT:
> "PUBLISHERS REQUIRE ONLY YOUR PERMISSION TO
PUBLISH AN
> ARTICLE, NOT A WHOLESALE TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT. HOLD
ONTO
> RIGHTS TO MAKE USE OF THE WORK IN WAYS THAT SERVE YOUR
NEEDS
> AND THAT PROMOTE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES." (SEE
> HTTP://WWW.ARL.ORG/SPARC/AUTHOR/ADDENDUM.HTML.) 
> 
> IETF SHOULD DO IT THAT WAY, AND NOT FOLLOW THE PATH OF
> PUBLISHERS WHO DEMAND MORE THAN THEY NEED.

YES.
 
> THE SUGGESTION THAT THE AUTHOR OF A CONTRIBUTION ASSIGN
HER
> COPYRIGHTS TO IETF WITH A LICENSE-BACK IS UNNECESSARY
LEGAL
> WORK. ALL THAT IETF NEEDS IS A LICENSE THAT (1) ALLOWS
IETF TO
> PUBLISH THE CONTRIBUTION AND DERIVATIVE WORKS THEREOF
IN AN
> RFC, AND (2) ALLOWS ANYONE TO COPY AND IMPLEMENT THE
> RESULTING IETF SPECIFICATION, AND TO PRACTICE AND SELL
> RESULTING SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF
ROYALTIES
> OR OTHER ONEROUS CONDITIONS.

YES.

> HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE
> TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF IETF?

THE PLACE WHERE WE HAVE A DISCONNECT IS THAT THE
TRADITIONAL
VIEW OF RFCS IS THAT THE RFC EDITOR ACTS MORE OR LESS AS
THE
AUTHOR'S AGENT IN PRODUCING THE FINAL RFC.  AS SUCH, THE
AUTHOR
RETAINS COPYRIGHT, NOT ONLY TO WHAT GOES TO THE RFC EDITOR,
BUT
TO WHAT IS PUBLISHED --ALL OF IT, IN ITS FINAL FORM-- AND
LICENSES TO THE IETF ONLY WHAT THE IETF NEEDS (PER YOUR
COMMENTS
ABOVE).  

PUT DIFFERENTLY, THERE IS AN _INPUT_ TO THE RFC EDITING,
PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION PROCESS (THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
THE
AUTHOR(S)) AND AN _OUTPUT_ FROM THAT PROCESS (THE PUBLISHED
FORM
OF THE RFC).   UNDER THE TRADITIONAL MODEL, THE AUTHOR OWNS
THE
COPYRIGHT TO BOTH, THE IETF GETS A LICENSE TO WHAT IT NEEDS,
AND
THE COMMUNITY GETS A LICENSE, FROM THE AUTHOR(S) TO
REPRODUCE,
DISTRIBUTE, ETC.

THE PROPOSED NEW MODEL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT THE
AUTHOR
RETAINS RIGHTS ONLY TO THE INPUT, BUT THAT THE OUTPUT
BELONGS TO
THE IETF TRUST.  THE AUTHOR HAS NO _INHERENT_ RIGHTS TO THE
LATTER.  ANY RIGHTS THE AUTHOR HAS TO EITHER THE COMPILED
WORK
OR TO ANY MODIFICATIONS THE RFC EDITOR MAKES TO THE PORTION
OF
THE COMPILED WORK THAT IS THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION EXIST
ONLY
IF THERE IS A LICENSE FROM THE IETF TRUST TO THE AUTHOR.  

IF WE ARE TO ADOPT THIS REVISED MODEL AT ALL (AND I WILL
LEAVE
THAT TO OTHERS TO DEBATE), THEN WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS A
REQUIREMENT (NOT A REQUEST TO THE TRUST THAT THEY CAN IGNORE
OR
A STATEMENT FROM THE IETF THAT CAN BE CHANGED) THAT LEAVES
THE
ORIGINAL AUTHORS WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RIGHTS IN THE
OUTPUT OF THE EDITING PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ASSUMED
TO
HAVE FOR YEARS.

    JOHN


_______________________________________________
IPR-WG MAILING LIST
IPR-WGIETF.ORG
HTTPS://WWW1.IETF.ORG/MAILMAN/LISTINFO/IPR-WG

--On Saturday, 28 July, 2007 13:22 -0400 "Joel M.
Halpern"
<joelstevecrocker.com> wrote:

> Note for clarification, and a suggestion for
resolution.
> 
> The below "requirement" would be a change
from what the WG is
> requesting.  However, given the rules as we are writing
them,
> the trust could make such a change.  (The fact that I,
and
> even John I suspect, consider that unlikely does not
change
> the fact that it is legally possible.)

Yes, I concur.
 
> Therefore, as I understand this particular issue, what
is
> needed is a statement in the inbound rights grant that
the
> authors, as a condition of the inbound rights grant,
will be
> granted the outbound rights to copy / extract from the
RFC.
> II believe the authors do not need the rights to make
changes
> to the RFC, just the rights to copy / extract.

Yes, that is also correct.

> Yes, that puts a tiny outbound constraint in inbound. 
So be
> it.  The actual point (and I think it is a useful
result of
> separating teh two documents) is that this constraint
MUST be
> an inbound constraint in order to meet the SPARC
conditions.

Yes.  Or any set of conditions that satisfy those base
requirements.  I didn't mean to express any particular
affection
for SPARC, although use of some thing obviously equivalent
has
some pragmatic advantages.  If SPARC doesn't do the job we
need,
we shouldn't use SPARC.  

The goal is only to be sure that the author has rights to
copy,
extract from, and republish the RFC, that, if there are
multiple
authors, they _all_ have those rights wrt the collective
(output
as published) work, and that those rights are not dependent
on
anything the IETF Trust might subsequently decide to do or
to
license to others.  Authors have never had the right to
modify
the text of an RFC (other than by translation) and to
publish
the result in a way that others would confuse with the
authoritative version of the RFC and I am not proposing to
give
it to them -- that would just violate good sense and good
policy.

regards,
   john



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

John Klensin wrote:
> If we are to adopt this revised model at all (and I
will leave
> that to others to debate), then what I'm looking for is
a
> requirement (not a request to the Trust that they can
ignore or
> a statement from the IETF that can be changed) that
leaves the
> original authors with substantially the same rights in
the
> output of the editing process that they have been
assumed to
> have for years.

And leaves *everyone* with substantially those same
rights.... With that
important change, I agree with you. 

It seems reasonable to make that requirement a part of the
Trust bylaws or
articles of incorporation, with a supermajority requirement
to change that.
I haven't read those documents; perhaps the public interest
is already
sufficiently protected?

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietfjck.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:44 AM
> To: lrosenrosenlaw.com; ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility
> 
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, 28 July, 2007 11:09 -0700 Lawrence
Rosen
> <lrosenrosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> > I am confused by the arguments in this thread.
There is
> > nothing inconsistent between "the IETF Trust
is the sole owner
> > of the copyright in a complete RFC" and
"author retains all
> > rights" to a contribution in that RFC.
> 
> Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone claimed otherwise.
> 
> > As pointed out
> > previously on this list, copyright law makes that
possible by
> > distinguishing between the copyright in a
contribution and the
> > [different] copyright in a collective or
derivative work that
> > uses that contribution.
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> > The FAQ for the SPARC Author Addendum partially
confirms that:
> > "Publishers require only your permission to
publish an
> > article, not a wholesale transfer of copyright.
Hold onto
> > rights to make use of the work in ways that serve
your needs
> > and that promote education and research
activities." (See
> > http:/
/www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.html.)
> >
> > IETF should do it that way, and not follow the
path of
> > publishers who demand more than they need.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > The suggestion that the author of a contribution
assign her
> > copyrights to IETF with a license-back is
unnecessary legal
> > work. All that IETF needs is a license that (1)
allows IETF to
> > publish the contribution and derivative works
thereof in an
> > RFC, and (2) allows anyone to copy and implement
the
> > resulting IETF specification, and to practice and
sell
> > resulting software or hardware, without payment of
royalties
> > or other onerous conditions.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > How is that different from or inconsistent with
the
> > traditional principles of IETF?
> 
> The place where we have a disconnect is that the
traditional
> view of RFCs is that the RFC Editor acts more or less
as the
> author's agent in producing the final RFC.  As such,
the author
> retains copyright, not only to what goes to the RFC
Editor, but
> to what is published --all of it, in its final form--
and
> licenses to the IETF only what the IETF needs (per your
comments
> above).
> 
> Put differently, there is an _input_ to the RFC
Editing,
> production, and publication process (the contributions
of the
> author(s)) and an _output_ from that process (the
published form
> of the RFC).   Under the traditional model, the author
owns the
> copyright to both, the IETF gets a license to what it
needs, and
> the community gets a license, from the author(s) to
reproduce,
> distribute, etc.
> 
> The proposed new model, as I understand it, is that the
author
> retains rights only to the input, but that the output
belongs to
> the IETF Trust.  The author has no _inherent_ rights to
the
> latter.  Any rights the author has to either the
compiled work
> or to any modifications the RFC Editor makes to the
portion of
> the compiled work that is the original contribution
exist only
> if there is a license from the IETF Trust to the
Author.
> 
> If we are to adopt this revised model at all (and I
will leave
> that to others to debate), then what I'm looking for is
a
> requirement (not a request to the Trust that they can
ignore or
> a statement from the IETF that can be changed) that
leaves the
> original authors with substantially the same rights in
the
> output of the editing process that they have been
assumed to
> have for years.
> 
>     john


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

""The place where we have a disconnect is that the
traditional
view of RFCs is that the RFC Editor acts more or less as
the
author's agent in producing the final RFC.""

wouldn't it be more accurate to view the editor not as a
mere agent but as
someone who authors a new, distinct copyrightable work
derived from the
author(s)' (and others) input?

the confusion seems to arise because the above view of the
RFC editor's role
implies that the RFC is not a derived work.


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

--On Saturday, 28 July, 2007 17:06 -0400 Bill Fardy
<bfardycomcast.net> wrote:

> ""The place where we have a disconnect is
that the traditional
> view of RFCs is that the RFC Editor acts more or less
as the
> author's agent in producing the final RFC.""
> 
> wouldn't it be more accurate to view the editor not as
a mere
> agent but as someone who authors a new, distinct
copyrightable
> work derived from the author(s)' (and others) input?
> 
> the confusion seems to arise because the above view of
the RFC
> editor's role implies that the RFC is not a derived
work.

As I understand it, that change is precisely what is being
proposed.  With the usual IANAL qualification, I don't
believe
it is a matter of "accurate", but of figuring out
who is acting
for whom.  Note that, if I recall, the current RFC Editor
contract specifies that anything the RFC Editor does is done
as
a work for hire by the IETF (or IASA, IAOC, ISOC, or IETF
Trust).  That provision was not present historically.

    john



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

--On Saturday, 28 July, 2007 13:49 -0700 Lawrence Rosen
<lrosenrosenlaw.com> wrote:

> John Klensin wrote:
>> If we are to adopt this revised model at all (and I
will leave
>> that to others to debate), then what I'm looking
for is a
>> requirement (not a request to the Trust that they
can ignore
>> or a statement from the IETF that can be changed)
that leaves
>> the original authors with substantially the same
rights in the
>> output of the editing process that they have been
assumed to
>> have for years.
> 
> And leaves *everyone* with substantially those same
rights....
> With that important change, I agree with you. 
> 
> It seems reasonable to make that requirement a part of
the
> Trust bylaws or articles of incorporation, with a
> supermajority requirement to change that. I haven't
read those
> documents; perhaps the public interest is already
sufficiently
> protected?

For those of us who are sufficiently paranoid to not trust
even
supermajorities (as was suggested earlier, I'm concerned
about
the principle here, rather than the likely practice), I'd
rather
have that condition as a requirement the author attaches at
submission, rather than something the Trust could change
even by
unanimous vote.  The IETF would have to recommend that The
Trust
accept documents containing that condition for IETF use,
but
since, if it stopped doing so, the IETF would be unable to
function, I'm comfortable trusting that one.

And that is where SPARC came in: not as a specific proposal
for
the language that was needed but as an illustration of how
author's rights can be reserved as a condition of
submission
rather than granted back by the publisher or compiler.

      john


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Fardy" <bfardycomcast.net>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietfjck.com>; <lrosenrosenlaw.com>; 
<ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


> ""The place where we have a disconnect is
that the traditional
> view of RFCs is that the RFC Editor acts more or less
as the
> author's agent in producing the final RFC.""
>
> wouldn't it be more accurate to view the editor not as
a mere agent but as
> someone who authors a new, distinct copyrightable work
derived from the
> author(s)' (and others) input?

We argued this before ... My assertion was that the RFC
Editor's output was 
a derivative of the submission if any editing was done.

>
> the confusion seems to arise because the above view of
the RFC editor's 
> role
> implies that the RFC is not a derived work.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Counsel -
This is where you and I disagree. As it happens, the IETF is
charted with a 
limited scope or preview and that is to create Internet
Standards and the 
supporting efforts. In that vein, the IETF cannot require
the owners of the 
IP to give them away free to make a standard. The IETF can
and should get 
all rights it needs to create a standard and nothing more.
The IETF is a 
standards process and not a mechanism of forcing IP to be
freely licensed 
with no restrictions on it. If the IETF does not charge to
use its standards 
then it has satisfied its goals and charter 100%.

When the IETF becomes a vector for political expression,
then it looses it 
objectivity and open.fairness as well since it openly
practices a 
prejudicial method of expelling all those that wont 'give
the IETF any and 
all rights'.

The reality is that the Standards Process only requires the
following:

    1)    The rights to publish, edit, and republish as part
of the 
standards and standards maintenance processes
    2)    The rights to implement to two or more instances
of the reference 
protocol/process implementation for the purpose of
qualifying the standard.

There is no need in the creation of the standard to make the
use of "the 
derivaive rights free" enablement unless that is the
intent of the 
contributors.  To prevent that IP from ever being
protectable.

If that is the intent then the legal backers of the
participants must also 
agree to this fundamental shift in IETF operating policy.
This is something 
that the contributor's should understand - they are not just
ceeding 
publication rights to the IETF they are ceeding derivative
use licensing 
such that they will no longer control those ever. They
cannot rescind those 
conveyances under the language of the original transfer (in
BCP78) so . 
There is no use or reason to make republishing the standards
process 
materials for any other purpose that satisfying the creation
and maintenance 
of the effort.

How would that agreement process which involves the sponsors
happen?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosenrosenlaw.com >
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


John Klensin and Simon Joseffson wrote:
> Because "the IETF Trust is the sole owner of the
copyright in a
> complete RFC" is a major step --both from the
original principle
> and from where I believe we stand today-- I don't want
to see it
> slip through without community discussion.  That does
not
> indicate that I think it is a bad idea because I don't;
I just
> believe that we need to identify consequences we might
not like
> and deal with them.
>
> > I have interpreted "author retains all
rights" to mean that
> > the author retains the copyright of the material
she
> > contributed.  The author is never given rights to
other
> > material that the author did not contribute, at
least not as
> > far as I can see in RFC 3978.
>
> Clearly you are not the only one who interpreted things
that
> way.  It is not the original interpretation.  And, as
you can
> probably infer from the above, I don't really care what
3978
> says or appears to say: if we were convinced that it
was
> adequate, this WG would have been closed long ago.

I am confused by the arguments in this thread. There is
nothing inconsistent
between "the IETF Trust is the sole owner of the
copyright in a complete
RFC" and "author retains all rights" to a
contribution in that RFC. As
pointed out previously on this list, copyright law makes
that possible by
distinguishing between the copyright in a contribution and
the [different]
copyright in a collective or derivative work that uses that
contribution.

The FAQ for the SPARC Author Addendum partially confirms
that: "Publishers
require only your permission to publish an article, not a
wholesale transfer
of copyright. Hold onto rights to make use of the work in
ways that serve
your needs and that promote education and research
activities." (See
http:/
/www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.html.)

IETF should do it that way, and not follow the path of
publishers who demand
more than they need.

The suggestion that the author of a contribution assign her
copyrights to
IETF with a license-back is unnecessary legal work. All that
IETF needs is a
license that (1) allows IETF to publish the contribution and
derivative
works thereof in an RFC, and (2) allows anyone to copy and
implement the
resulting IETF specification, and to practice and sell
resulting software or
hardware, without payment of royalties or other onerous
conditions.

How is that different from or inconsistent with the
traditional principles
of IETF?

/Larry

P.S. As an author, I myself will NEVER assign my copyright
to a publisher.
They don't need it and I won't give it away.

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice
Hall 2004)



_______________________________________________
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

Counsel -
I think the problem is not the copyright on the derivative
document - that 
clearly the trust would own, its the use of the core IP for
any and all 
purposes that is the problem, especially when we leverage
one design on 
designs or components issued under previous or external IP
controls.

T.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosenrosenlaw.com>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


John Klensin and Simon Joseffson wrote:
> Because "the IETF Trust is the sole owner of the
copyright in a
> complete RFC" is a major step --both from the
original principle
> and from where I believe we stand today-- I don't want
to see it
> slip through without community discussion.  That does
not
> indicate that I think it is a bad idea because I don't;
I just
> believe that we need to identify consequences we might
not like
> and deal with them.
>
> > I have interpreted "author retains all
rights" to mean that
> > the author retains the copyright of the material
she
> > contributed.  The author is never given rights to
other
> > material that the author did not contribute, at
least not as
> > far as I can see in RFC 3978.
>
> Clearly you are not the only one who interpreted things
that
> way.  It is not the original interpretation.  And, as
you can
> probably infer from the above, I don't really care what
3978
> says or appears to say: if we were convinced that it
was
> adequate, this WG would have been closed long ago.

I am confused by the arguments in this thread. There is
nothing inconsistent
between "the IETF Trust is the sole owner of the
copyright in a complete
RFC" and "author retains all rights" to a
contribution in that RFC. As
pointed out previously on this list, copyright law makes
that possible by
distinguishing between the copyright in a contribution and
the [different]
copyright in a collective or derivative work that uses that
contribution.

The FAQ for the SPARC Author Addendum partially confirms
that: "Publishers
require only your permission to publish an article, not a
wholesale transfer
of copyright. Hold onto rights to make use of the work in
ways that serve
your needs and that promote education and research
activities." (See
http:/
/www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.html.)

IETF should do it that way, and not follow the path of
publishers who demand
more than they need.

The suggestion that the author of a contribution assign her
copyrights to
IETF with a license-back is unnecessary legal work. All that
IETF needs is a
license that (1) allows IETF to publish the contribution and
derivative
works thereof in an RFC, and (2) allows anyone to copy and
implement the
resulting IETF specification, and to practice and sell
resulting software or
hardware, without payment of royalties or other onerous
conditions.

How is that different from or inconsistent with the
traditional principles
of IETF?

/Larry

P.S. As an author, I myself will NEVER assign my copyright
to a publisher.
They don't need it and I won't give it away.

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice
Hall 2004)



_______________________________________________
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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietfjck.com>
To: <lrosenrosenlaw.com>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


>
>
> --On Saturday, 28 July, 2007 13:49 -0700 Lawrence
Rosen
> <lrosenrosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
>> John Klensin wrote:
>>> If we are to adopt this revised model at all
(and I will leave
>>> that to others to debate), then what I'm
looking for is a
>>> requirement (not a request to the Trust that
they can ignore
>>> or a statement from the IETF that can be
changed) that leaves
>>> the original authors with substantially the
same rights in the
>>> output of the editing process that they have
been assumed to
>>> have for years.
>>
>> And leaves *everyone* with substantially those same
rights....
>> With that important change, I agree with you.
>>
>> It seems reasonable to make that requirement a part
of the
>> Trust bylaws or articles of incorporation, with a
>> supermajority requirement to change that. I haven't
read those
>> documents; perhaps the public interest is already
sufficiently
>> protected?
>
> For those of us who are sufficiently paranoid to not
trust even
> supermajorities (as was suggested earlier, I'm
concerned about
> the principle here, rather than the likely practice),
I'd rather
> have that condition as a requirement the author
attaches at
> submission, rather than something the Trust could
change even by
> unanimous vote.  The IETF would have to recommend that
The Trust
> accept documents containing that condition for IETF
use, but
> since, if it stopped doing so, the IETF would be unable
to
> function, I'm comfortable trusting that one.

The TRUST cannot change anything such that the outgoing
rights are greater 
than the incomming rights with regard to the core IP's
submitted. Arguably 
the same is true for the derivatives as well.

>
> And that is where SPARC came in: not as a specific
proposal for
> the language that was needed but as an illustration of
how
> author's rights can be reserved as a condition of
submission
> rather than granted back by the publisher or compiler.

Actually NO... it is exactly a proposal. The reason is that
the Academic's 
which are constrained by SPARC are tied to it and not some
techno-babble 
representation of it. That means that without SPARC itself
in place, they 
cannot contribute using their Institutions Networks or
resources, and that 
may eliminate much of the academic contributions to the IETF
IMHO. Is it 
worth taking that chance?

>
>      john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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