SPARC Author Addendum compatibility

In the WG meeting today, it was strongly suggested that the
IETF would 
benefit from having its rules for licences from authors and
authors' rights 
be compatible with the SPARC Author Addendum, which makes
sure an author 
continues to have the right to reuse his contribution in
other contexts.

I believe this has always been the intent of IETF's
"assign no copyright" 
policy, but it would be a Good Thing to make sure that we
are in fact 
compatible with that document.

The SPARC addendum is housed at:

<http://www.arl.o
rg/sparc/author/>

The addendum itself can be found under the page (I had to
generate a fake 
addendum; ymmv), and the critical part of text seems to be:

Author's Retention of Rights. Notwithstanding any terms in
the Publication 
Agreement to the contrary, AUTHOR and PUBLISHER agree
that in addition to any rights under copyright retained by
Author in the 
Publication Agreement, Author retains: (i) the rights to
reproduce, to 
distribute, to publicly perform, and to publicly display the
Article in any 
medium for non-commercial purposes; (ii) the right to
prepare derivative 
works from the Article; and (iii) the right to authorize
others to make any 
non-commercial use of the Article so long as Author receives
credit as 
author and the journal in which the Article has been
published is cited as 
the source of first publication of the Article. For example,
Author may 
make and distribute copies in the course of teaching and
research and may 
post the Article on personal or institutional Web sites and
in other 
open-access digital repositories.

With some massage to fit with our commonly used vocabulary,
I think adding 
such a section to the -incoming document (and explaining
that our intent is 
to be compatible with the SPARC addendum) is a Good Thing.

Comments?

                Harald

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

Harald - if the IETF would adopt SPARC compliance I would
love it... the 
SPARC models allow for copyrights to be conveyed to a third
party (like the 
IETF for instance) and for the rights to the derivative
works (in the form 
of product rights based on the core IP) to be retained,
which is something 
that the original IETF coveted and extolled as its core
value... 'we provide 
a standards process that doesnt require you give us sole
control over the 
IP'...

The logic is simple. That being if creating standards is a
key thing to do 
in the form of insuring interoperability, then the core of
the value should 
not be creating 'open standards' but rather by creating
'standards' 
themselves. Why this is important is that it allows the IETF
to bring in 
commercial IP's as well...

By the way - the IETF really does have an opportunity here
that should be 
reviewed before its discounted... That being to allow
proprietary IP's to be 
included in IETF actions on the following conditions:

1)    That all IP constraints for the use of this 'work' is
disclosed by the 
IP owners in the filing. This assures that the IP's use
requirements will be 
disclosed and known and will enable people to make
reasonable choices what 
they want to "contribute their vetting hours" to.

2)    That the submitters of the proprietary IP warrant that
they will 
defend their rights to file that IP with the IETF and will
cover any IETF 
expenses based on that IP's induction into the IETF
processes.

3)    That the derivative use rights for republishing the
standardards 
documents, and their supporting Note Well archives are
included in the #1 
requirement disclosure documents.

4)    That the work products of the IETF in these matters
will not be the 
property of the IETF Trust, and that the IP owners will pay
the IETF a 
yearly licensing fee (say $50K or somesuch like that)  for
their keeping 
their IP 'registered' with the IETF. Failing to pay the
registration fee 
'depublishes' the document and prevents its use or reference
in other 
commercial documents... so the owners of these registered
standards.

As to why? - the IETF gives away all of its power and its
value... that 
being the 'any and all uses' forever language. In this model
we get the best 
of all worlds and allow the people paying the bills to
participate directly, 
something that the IETF has needed for some time now.

-------------------------------

This services model allows the IETF to offer corporate
sponsors the ability 
to run propietary efforts, and ones  which will increase the
value of the 
IETF to those sponsors too IMHO...


Todd


----- Original Message ----- 



From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" haraldalvestrand.no
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


> In the WG meeting today, it was strongly suggested that
the IETF would 
> benefit from having its rules for licences from authors
and authors' 
> rights be compatible with the SPARC Author Addendum,
which makes sure an 
> author continues to have the right to reuse his
contribution in other 
> contexts.
>
> I believe this has always been the intent of IETF's
"assign no copyright" 
> policy, but it would be a Good Thing to make sure that
we are in fact 
> compatible with that document.
>
> The SPARC addendum is housed at:
>
> <http://www.arl.o
rg/sparc/author/>
>
> The addendum itself can be found under the page (I had
to generate a fake 
> addendum; ymmv), and the critical part of text seems to
be:
>
> Author's Retention of Rights. Notwithstanding any terms
in the Publication 
> Agreement to the contrary, AUTHOR and PUBLISHER agree
> that in addition to any rights under copyright retained
by Author in the 
> Publication Agreement, Author retains: (i) the rights
to reproduce, to 
> distribute, to publicly perform, and to publicly
display the Article in 
> any medium for non-commercial purposes; (ii) the right
to prepare 
> derivative works from the Article; and (iii) the right
to authorize others 
> to make any non-commercial use of the Article so long
as Author receives 
> credit as author and the journal in which the Article
has been published 
> is cited as the source of first publication of the
Article. For example, 
> Author may make and distribute copies in the course of
teaching and 
> research and may post the Article on personal or
institutional Web sites 
> and in other open-access digital repositories.
>
> With some massage to fit with our commonly used
vocabulary, I think adding 
> such a section to the -incoming document (and
explaining that our intent 
> is to be compatible with the SPARC addendum) is a Good
Thing.
>
> Comments?
>
>                Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> In the WG meeting today, it was strongly suggested that
the IETF would
> benefit from having its rules for licences from authors
and authors'
> rights be compatible with the SPARC Author Addendum,
which makes sure
> an author continues to have the right to reuse his
contribution in
> other contexts.
>
> I believe this has always been the intent of IETF's
"assign no
> copyright" policy, but it would be a Good Thing to
make sure that we
> are in fact compatible with that document.
>
> The SPARC addendum is housed at:
>
> <http://www.arl.o
rg/sparc/author/>
>
> The addendum itself can be found under the page (I had
to generate a
> fake addendum; ymmv), and the critical part of text
seems to be:
>
> Author's Retention of Rights. Notwithstanding any terms
in the
> Publication Agreement to the contrary, AUTHOR and
PUBLISHER agree
> that in addition to any rights under copyright retained
by Author in
> the Publication Agreement, Author retains: (i) the
rights to
> reproduce, to distribute, to publicly perform, and to
publicly display
> the Article in any medium for non-commercial purposes;
(ii) the right
> to prepare derivative works from the Article; and (iii)
the right to
> authorize others to make any non-commercial use of the
Article so long
> as Author receives credit as author and the journal in
which the
> Article has been published is cited as the source of
first publication
> of the Article. For example, Author may make and
distribute copies in
> the course of teaching and research and may post the
Article on
> personal or institutional Web sites and in other
open-access digital
> repositories.
>
> With some massage to fit with our commonly used
vocabulary, I think
> adding such a section to the -incoming document (and
explaining that
> our intent is to be compatible with the SPARC addendum)
is a Good
> Thing.
>
> Comments?

The SPARC addendum seems more limited than what "author
retains all
rights" imply to me.  For example, the license doesn't
permit commercial
use, and requires attribution.  I don't believe either
should be in a
IETF "clarification" of the rules, and I don't
think the addendum is
something that the IETF should adopt.

Generally, it seems better to explain that all rights are
retained,
rather than to enumerate the things that the author can
continue to do.

However, as the SPARC addendum is a sub-set of the rights
retain by
authors of IETF document, clarifying that property may be
useful.

/Simon

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

On 2007-07-25 03:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> In the WG meeting today, it was strongly suggested that
the IETF would 
> benefit from having its rules for licences from authors
and authors' 
> rights be compatible with the SPARC Author Addendum,
which makes sure an 
> author continues to have the right to reuse his
contribution in other 
> contexts.
> 
> I believe this has always been the intent of IETF's
"assign no 
> copyright" policy, but it would be a Good Thing to
make sure that we are 
> in fact compatible with that document.
> 
> The SPARC addendum is housed at:
> 
> <http://www.arl.o
rg/sparc/author/>
> 
> The addendum itself can be found under the page (I had
to generate a 
> fake addendum; ymmv), and the critical part of text
seems to be:
> 
> Author's Retention of Rights. Notwithstanding any terms
in the 
> Publication Agreement to the contrary, AUTHOR and
PUBLISHER agree
> that in addition to any rights under copyright retained
by Author in the 
> Publication Agreement, Author retains: (i) the rights
to reproduce, to 
> distribute, to publicly perform, and to publicly
display the Article in 
> any medium for non-commercial purposes; (ii) the right
to prepare 
> derivative works from the Article; and (iii) the right
to authorize 
> others to make any non-commercial use of the Article so
long as Author 
> receives credit as author and the journal in which the
Article has been 
> published is cited as the source of first publication
of the Article. 
> For example, Author may make and distribute copies in
the course of 
> teaching and research and may post the Article on
personal or 
> institutional Web sites and in other open-access
digital repositories.
> 
> With some massage to fit with our commonly used
vocabulary, I think 
> adding such a section to the -incoming document (and
explaining that our 
> intent is to be compatible with the SPARC addendum) is
a Good Thing.
> 

Stating the intent is goodness (and as Simon says, the
intent is even
broader). But I wonder whether crafting the legal wording
isn't yet
another thing to punt to the Trust?

      Brian

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

--On Wednesday, 25 July, 2007 14:59 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpentergmail.com> wrote:

> On 2007-07-25 03:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> In the WG meeting today, it was strongly suggested
that the
>> IETF would  benefit from having its rules for
licences from
>> authors and authors'  rights be compatible with the
SPARC
>> Author Addendum, which makes sure an  author
continues to
>> have the right to reuse his contribution in other 
contexts.
>...
 
>> With some massage to fit with our commonly used
vocabulary, I
>> think  adding such a section to the -incoming
document (and
>> explaining that our  intent is to be compatible
with the
>> SPARC addendum) is a Good Thing.
>> 
> 
> Stating the intent is goodness (and as Simon says, the
intent
> is even
> broader). But I wonder whether crafting the legal
wording
> isn't yet
> another thing to punt to the Trust?

Having started this particular thread by pointing to the
SPARC
stuff during the WG meeting, a few comments...

(1) Our traditional principle is that the author retains
all
rights but gives the IETF permission to do certain things. 
That
retention of rights applies not just to use of materials
the
author put into the system (I-Ds and, given the text of the
Note
Well, the principles behind which were always the intent,
mailing list postings, miscellaneous utterings, etc.) but
also
to use of material in the RFCs post-editing and as
published.

(2) There are arguments that are good enough to persuade me
that
we should change that so that the IETF Trust ends up holding
the
copyright in the RFC publication form of the work.  One can
get
from here to there by various paths on which I'm not going
to
comment, but the principle is that the RFCs should belong to
the
IETF [Trust] and not the authors.    YMMD on that
principle.

However, if one accepts that principle, even for purposes
of
discussion, then retention of the author's rights as
understood
historically (and as summarized in (1)) requires that the
IETF
Trust irrevocably leave authors with those rights needed to
do
substantially anything they could do under (1).  Two things
are
_not_ sufficient for that purpose.  

	(i) The WG and IETF advise the IPR Trust to provide such
	a license.  This doesn't work because what the IETF
	and/or Trust can give, they can take back... if not for
	one particular document, then for the next request that
	comes along.
	
	(ii) Statement that the author retains all rights in the
	_original_ contribution (i.e., the I-D or equivalent).
	To preserve rights the authors have today, the authors
	must have fairly broad rights to use the RFC as
	published, not merely to use the pre-editing,
	pre-combination version.  

Note that, ironically given other decisions we have made,
there
is a bit of the flavor of the GPL in this: Authors
contribute
rights to the IETF but, in return, get those same rights
back to
what the IETF, and the IETF's editing and publication
processes,
derive from that document.   But, unlike the GPL, that
reverse
grant does not need to be either global or contagious for
this
purpose.


(3) I pointed to the SPARC stuff for two reasons.  One was
to
point out that there is some precedent for authors making
the
right things happen by reserving rights or by transferring
rights on condition of certain licenses being given to the
authors.  By making handing things over to the contingent
on
such licenses, there is no issue of the IETF somehow
deciding
that author use of published RFCs for their own purposes is
a
revenue opportunity (as many academic publishers have done
for
years).  It was _not_ to suggest that either the specific
language of the SPARC materials was right for us (our
terminology differs and that, at least, would need some
mapping)
or that the SPARC-based rights were the precise set that
were
necessary and sufficient for our needs.

The second reason was to point out that there are
contributors
to the IETF and its work who can contribute under the
existing
rules but who would be prohibited by their institutional
employers from contributing without something equivalent to
(or
a superset of) the SPARC grant-back (or reservation) of
rights.
That condition is very much connected to the SPARC text
because
several institutions have written their rules to cite the
SPARC
ones.   Unless we want to start telling people who have
been
contributing actively to the IETF that they can't do it any
more, a new model of copyright ownership that would prevent
them
from contributing ought to me, IMO, a complete non-starter.

      john


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

John -

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <johnjck.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpentergmail.com>; "Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SPARC Author Addendum compatibility


>
>
> --On Wednesday, 25 July, 2007 14:59 +0200 Brian E
Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpentergmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-07-25 03:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
wrote:
>>> In the WG meeting today, it was strongly
suggested that the
>>> IETF would  benefit from having its rules for
licences from
>>> authors and authors'  rights be compatible with
the SPARC
>>> Author Addendum, which makes sure an  author
continues to
>>> have the right to reuse his contribution in
other  contexts.
>>...
>
>>> With some massage to fit with our commonly used
vocabulary, I
>>> think  adding such a section to the -incoming
document (and
>>> explaining that our  intent is to be compatible
with the
>>> SPARC addendum) is a Good Thing.

It may be critical moving forward.

>>>
>>
>> Stating the intent is goodness (and as Simon says,
the intent
>> is even
>> broader). But I wonder whether crafting the legal
wording
>> isn't yet
>> another thing to punt to the Trust?
>
> Having started this particular thread by pointing to
the SPARC
> stuff during the WG meeting, a few comments...
>
> (1) Our traditional principle is that the author
retains all
> rights but gives the IETF permission to do certain
things.

But "used for what is the question". This has
always been my objection, the 
IETF doesnt need any more rights than what are needed to
make the Standard. 
And there is no cause to make this IP free and available,
beyond its use as 
a Standard.

What the IETF is now requiring the submitter to do is to
convey open use for 
anything to the IETF Trust, and in fact in doing that they
_do not control_ 
the IP any longer.  That is extortion especially with those
who have 
previously submitted media whether published or not IMHO.

> That
> retention of rights applies not just to use of
materials the
> author put into the system (I-Ds and, given the text of
the Note
> Well, the principles behind which were always the
intent,
> mailing list postings, miscellaneous utterings, etc.)
but also
> to use of material in the RFCs post-editing and as
published.

OK, but that is NOT what is happening under BCP78 and BCP79.
The argument is 
simple, if the SUBMITTER is conveying 'ANY AND ALL USES' to
the IETF then 
they can hardly  control their IP any longer, and in fact
while they may 
technically own the original submittal, they will never be
able to patent it 
or any derivatives without tons of pain.

Isnt that Information Terrorism by the way?

>
> (2) There are arguments that are good enough to
persuade me that
> we should change that so that the IETF Trust ends up
holding the
> copyright in the RFC publication form of the work.

This is where I start to disagree... The IETF Trust may be
an abomination - 
its certainly an accident waiting to happen. It (the Trust)
would have been 
a great idea if the IETF was something that it is not... and
cannot be 
either based on years of documents published under
previously much looser 
participation requirements. Making them tougher now in the
sense of forcing 
the IP to belong to the IETF itself or its 3rd party Agent,
the Trust, is 
extortion from those previous participants IMHO.


> One can get
> from here to there by various paths on which I'm not
going to
> comment, but the principle is that the RFCs should
belong to the
> IETF [Trust] and not the authors.    YMMD on that
principle.

I do.


>
> However, if one accepts that principle, even for
purposes of
> discussion, then retention of the author's rights as
understood
> historically (and as summarized in (1)) requires that
the IETF
> Trust irrevocably leave authors with those rights
needed to do
> substantially anything they could do under (1).  Two
things are
> _not_ sufficient for that purpose.
>
> (i) The WG and IETF advise the IPR Trust to provide
such
> a license.  This doesn't work because what the IETF
> and/or Trust can give, they can take back... if not
for
> one particular document, then for the next request
that
> comes along.
>
> (ii) Statement that the author retains all rights in
the
> _original_ contribution (i.e., the I-D or equivalent).
> To preserve rights the authors have today, the authors
> must have fairly broad rights to use the RFC as
> published, not merely to use the pre-editing,
> pre-combination version.
>
> Note that, ironically given other decisions we have
made, there
> is a bit of the flavor of the GPL in this: Authors
contribute
> rights to the IETF but, in return, get those same
rights back to
> what the IETF, and the IETF's editing and publication
processes,
> derive from that document.   But, unlike the GPL, that
reverse
> grant does not need to be either global or contagious
for this
> purpose.
>
>
> (3) I pointed to the SPARC stuff for two reasons.  One
was to
> point out that there is some precedent for authors
making the
> right things happen by reserving rights or by
transferring
> rights on condition of certain licenses being given to
the
> authors.  By making handing things over to the
contingent on
> such licenses, there is no issue of the IETF somehow
deciding
> that author use of published RFCs for their own
purposes is a
> revenue opportunity (as many academic publishers have
done for
> years).  It was _not_ to suggest that either the
specific
> language of the SPARC materials was right for us (our
> terminology differs and that, at least, would need some
mapping)
> or that the SPARC-based rights were the precise set
that were
> necessary and sufficient for our needs.

Although the IETF could use SPARC directly and with minimal
changes too.

>
> The second reason was to point out that there are
contributors
> to the IETF and its work who can contribute under the
existing
> rules but who would be prohibited by their
institutional
> employers from contributing without something
equivalent to (or
> a superset of) the SPARC grant-back (or reservation) of
rights.

Which will come to effect more and more of our Academic
Contributors over 
the long run.

> That condition is very much connected to the SPARC text
because
> several institutions have written their rules to cite
the SPARC
> ones.

research Institutions are also picking up SPARC as well for
many of their 
papers externally as well.

> Unless we want to start telling people who have been
> contributing actively to the IETF that they can't do it
any
> more, a new model of copyright ownership that would
prevent them
> from contributing ought to me, IMO, a complete
non-starter.

There is another question to ask, and that is whether those
institutions 
that mandate SPARC compliance will allow people on their
staff or otherwise, 
to publish outside of the SPARC format personally when their
professional 
life requires it, especially if their academic roles or
focus is particular 
to those areas which might interest the IETF.

Seriously - John is right - without adopting SPARC or
provisions compatible 
with it, there may very soon come a time when Academic
Contributions from a 
number of key places cease and those people working there
will have their 
continued participation with those entities made reliant on
their keeping 
those agreements with their Academic Sponsors... bluntly
that means you 
cannot leave the University and go home and write a paper
for the IETF on 
anything if your work for the University is constrained by
SPARC because 
they own derivatives of your work products whether done on
their time or not 
in most instances.

That said you will see changes from Academic General
Counsel's in response 
to SPARC questions in the near future I am betting and the
response is "Yes 
we embrace SPARC".

Todd
>
>      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

John C Klensin <johnjck.com> writes:

> (1) Our traditional principle is that the author
retains all
> rights but gives the IETF permission to do certain
things.  That
> retention of rights applies not just to use of
materials the
> author put into the system (I-Ds and, given the text of
the Note
> Well, the principles behind which were always the
intent,
> mailing list postings, miscellaneous utterings, etc.)
but also
> to use of material in the RFCs post-editing and as
published.

That isn't clear to me, and seems dubious from a legal point
of view.

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.

> (2) There are arguments that are good enough to
persuade me that
> we should change that so that the IETF Trust ends up
holding the
> copyright in the RFC publication form of the work.  One
can get
> from here to there by various paths on which I'm not
going to
> comment, but the principle is that the RFCs should
belong to the
> IETF [Trust] and not the authors.    YMMD on that
principle.

I strongly disagree with this, unless the IETF Trust license
all of, and
the entirety of, contributions to everyone under a liberal
license.

> 	(i) The WG and IETF advise the IPR Trust to provide
such
> 	a license.  This doesn't work because what the IETF
> 	and/or Trust can give, they can take back... if not
for
> 	one particular document, then for the next request
that
> 	comes along.

I believe that we should address this by stating that the
outgoing
license can never be retroactively revoked.  I hope this is
the
intention of the WG, but alas, the outgoing documents is
underspecified
on this topic.

> (3) I pointed to the SPARC stuff for two reasons.  One
was to
> point out that there is some precedent for authors
making the
> right things happen by reserving rights or by
transferring
> rights on condition of certain licenses being given to
the
> authors.  By making handing things over to the
contingent on
> such licenses, there is no issue of the IETF somehow
deciding
> that author use of published RFCs for their own
purposes is a
> revenue opportunity (as many academic publishers have
done for
> years).  It was _not_ to suggest that either the
specific
> language of the SPARC materials was right for us (our
> terminology differs and that, at least, would need some
mapping)
> or that the SPARC-based rights were the precise set
that were
> necessary and sufficient for our needs.
>
> The second reason was to point out that there are
contributors
> to the IETF and its work who can contribute under the
existing
> rules but who would be prohibited by their
institutional
> employers from contributing without something
equivalent to (or
> a superset of) the SPARC grant-back (or reservation) of
rights.
> That condition is very much connected to the SPARC text
because
> several institutions have written their rules to cite
the SPARC
> ones.   Unless we want to start telling people who have
been
> contributing actively to the IETF that they can't do it
any
> more, a new model of copyright ownership that would
prevent them
> from contributing ought to me, IMO, a complete
non-starter.

I don't buy that: the current license proposals aren't that
much
different from what is in effect now.  If they have a
problem with the
current proposal, I'd expect them to have even more problems
with the
current license.

The actual text of the SPARC addendum seems harmful to me,
and radically
different from the IETF tradition.  The SPARC addendum gives
authors
more limited rights compared to what authors are given by
the IETF
today.  The reason for citing SPARC addendum's in
organization is
presumably so that authors retain at least the rights
guaranteed by the
SPARC addendum.  The IETF's current and proposed rules gives
authors
more rights.  I don't understand why they would object to
that?  Do
these organization want to release more rights than what
they have?
That seems surprising to me.

/Simon

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

--On Saturday, 28 July, 2007 17:22 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<simonjosefsson.org> wrote:

> John C Klensin <johnjck.com> writes:
> 
>> (1) Our traditional principle is that the author
retains all
>> rights but gives the IETF permission to do certain
things.
>> That retention of rights applies not just to use of
materials
>> the author put into the system (I-Ds and, given the
text of
>> the Note Well, the principles behind which were
always the
>> intent, mailing list postings, miscellaneous
utterings, etc.)
>> but also to use of material in the RFCs
post-editing and as
>> published.
> 
> That isn't clear to me, and seems dubious from a legal
point
> of view.

Simon, there is a very clear tradition about how RFCs, and
RFC
Contributions, were handled over time, starting long before
there was an IETF.  When I talk about "traditional
principles",
I am talking about that tradition.   One of the properties
of
that tradition was that the IETF was permitted to use
documents
in any way it needed within the standards process, that
anyone
was able to reproduce, distribute, or translate RFCs in
toto.
In principle, any other uses by anyone else that required
permission necessitated the would-be user to work that out
with
the author(s).   One can either like that or not, consider
it
practical and/or legally reasonable or not, but I believe it
is
a correct characterization of the long-term principles and
assumptions. 

It is also clear that the IETF has been moving away from
that
model  in its published statements and boilerplate.  Some
of
those moves, such as more flexibility for the use of
"code",
have obviously been necessary and the changes clearly
represent
community consensus -- at least of the IETF community if not
of
the RFC-user community.  Others have been consequences of a
gradual shift in the perceived role of the IETF from a body
that
does engineering work that promotes Internet
interoperability to
a standards body with an interest in controlling and
promoting
the use of its products.  And still others have been
accidents
of how particular documents were worded -- sometimes
nibbling
away at rights in sufficiently small units that no one has
felt
motivated to object loudly.

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.

>> (2) There are arguments that are good enough to
persuade me
>> that we should change that so that the IETF Trust
ends up
>> holding the copyright in the RFC publication form
of the
>> work.  One can get from here to there by various
paths on
>> which I'm not going to comment, but the principle
is that the
>> RFCs should belong to the IETF [Trust] and not the
authors.
>> YMMD on that principle.
> 
> I strongly disagree with this, unless the IETF Trust
license
> all of, and the entirety of, contributions to everyone
under a
> liberal license.

Of course, such a license would be a superset of the SPARC
one.
I imagine that we can argue its merits (or not) elsewhere. 
But
note that, if you believe that authors have no rights in an
RFC
other than to the text of their original contributions,
this
shift in copyright status --based on the work of the RFC
Editor
and the compilation associated with adding boilerplate that
clearly belongs to the IETF-- changes almost nothing.

>> 	(i) The WG and IETF advise the IPR Trust to
provide such
>> 	a license.  This doesn't work because what the
IETF
>> 	and/or Trust can give, they can take back... if
not for
>> 	one particular document, then for the next request
that
>> 	comes along.
> 
> I believe that we should address this by stating that
the
> outgoing license can never be retroactively revoked.  I
hope
> this is the intention of the WG, but alas, the
outgoing
> documents is underspecified on this topic.

Preventing revocation of the outgoing license is no
protection
against future changes for future outgoing licenses.  And I
note
that there is a window between submission of incoming
materials
and  issuance of outgoing ones (with whatever license they
carry).  Submitting something with an inbound license that
gives
the IETF very broad authority on the assumption that the
outbound license in effect when the document is published
is
probably safe in all foreseeable circumstances, but is just
not
legally sensible.

>...
>> The second reason was to point out that there are
contributors
>> to the IETF and its work who can contribute under
the existing
>> rules but who would be prohibited by their
institutional
>> employers from contributing without something
equivalent to
>> (or a superset of) the SPARC grant-back (or
reservation) of
>> rights. That condition is very much connected to
the SPARC
>> text because several institutions have written
their rules to
>> cite the SPARC ones.   Unless we want to start
telling people
>> who have been contributing actively to the IETF
that they
>> can't do it any more, a new model of copyright
ownership that
>> would prevent them from contributing ought to me,
IMO, a
>> complete non-starter.
> 
> I don't buy that: the current license proposals aren't
that
> much different from what is in effect now.  If they
have a
> problem with the current proposal, I'd expect them to
have
> even more problems with the current license.

That is not the interpretation of some of the people
involved.
In particular, there is almost nothing in the existing
procedures, and nothing at all in the model contemplated by
"outgoing" that would legally prevent the IETF
Trust from
charging an author a small fee for including an RFC on the
author's web site or a fee for making a large, non-code,
excerpt.

> The actual text of the SPARC addendum seems harmful to
me, and
> radically different from the IETF tradition.  The
SPARC
> addendum gives authors more limited rights compared to
what
> authors are given by the IETF today.  The reason for
citing
> SPARC addendum's in organization is presumably so that
authors
> retain at least the rights guaranteed by the SPARC
addendum.
> The IETF's current and proposed rules gives authors
more
> rights.
>...

That is not clear.  See out difference of opinion about the
rights authors now have to the published form of RFCs
above.
And, again, I'm not concerned about the rules we intend to
have,
or the rules that we _suggest_ to the IETF Trust that they
adopt, but in limiting the ability of the Trust to adopt
author-hostile rules.   While I'm not worried about the
ethics
of the individuals involved today, I also note that, if
there is
ever a conflict between the needs and desires of the IETF,
and
suggestions from the IETF to the Trust reflecting those
needs
and desires, and the needs or desires of the Trust and/or
IASA,
having the same person or firm as counsel for both could
constitute a conflict of interest.

And, again, I cited SPARC as a minimum if the IETF is going
to
strongly assert copyright over the RFCs.   If the IETF is
not
going to do that, then we are left with the current
ambiguous
situation with which, I, at least, can life.  If we are
going to
do that, then I think there needs to be clear grants back
to
authors that are at least as strong as SPARC.  As someone
who is
still attached to the original principles and intent, I have
no
objections at all to making them a lot stronger.

    john


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

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.)

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 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.

Yours,
Joel

At 01:00 PM 7/28/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
>That is not the interpretation of some of the people
involved.
>In particular, there is almost nothing in the existing
>procedures, and nothing at all in the model contemplated
by
>"outgoing" that would legally prevent the IETF
Trust from
>charging an author a small fee for including an RFC on
the
>author's web site or a fee for making a large, non-code,
excerpt.


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

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