Since the previous attempt at discussion didn't bring what I
consider
enough feedback to claim that I know what the group
consensus is, I've
asked Scott Bradner to publish the draft "as-is".
The result of that posting is
draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-02.txt.
I believe that all other changes agreed to in Chicago have
been
incorporated, but I'm still not happy with the amount of
resolution of
section 5.10.
Please - if you have comments on the issue described below,
relevant to
section 5.10, please include "#1511" in the
subject line somewhere.
If you have issues with the rest of the document, pleas
start a new thread
that starts with the string "ISSUE".
------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Greetings,
in the process of preparing the next version of -incoming,
incorporating
the list-confirmed decisions of the Chicago WG meeting, a
couple of
issues have been brought to light.
One concerns the granting of a license to the author to use
the text
submitted for an RFC in other work - referred to in Chicago
discussions
by the label of "SPARC addendum".
Two approaches have been suggested:
1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming,
granting essentially the
same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking
them to the
submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant
decision:
> 5.10. Contributors retention of rights
> .br
> Notwithstanding any terms in this document to the
contrary, in addition
> to any rights under copyright retained by Contributor
and in addition to
> any rights generally granted by the TETF trust,
Contributor retains, and
> grants to each Co-Contributor to an RFC in which such
Contributor's
> Contribution, or a derivative work thereof may appear,
the right: .in +3
> .ti -3
> (A) to copy, publish, display, and distribute any RFC
that includes the
> Contribution, in whole or in part, .ti -3
> (B) to prepare translations of such RFC into languages
other than
> English, in whole or in part, and to copy, publish,
display, and
> distribute such translations or portions thereof, and
.ti -3
> (C) to reproduce any trademarks, service marks or trade
names which are
> included in the RFC solely in connection with the
reproduction,
> distribution or publication of the RFC thereof as
permitted by this
> Section 5.10, provided that when reproducing RFCs,
trademark and service
> mark identifiers used in the RFC, including TM and (R),
will be preserved.
> .in -3
>
> Notwithstanding the above rights, the Contributor does
not have the right
> to represent any document as an RFC, or equivalent to
an RFC, if it is
> not a full and complete copy or translation of the
published RFC.
2) Granting a special license to produce derivative works
from the text
of the finished RFC, subject only to the limitation that the
result
can't be presented as if it was an RFC.
The argument has been presented (in private) that the
following
principles were "always implied" wrt RFCs:
(1) The author(s) or editor(s) of an RFC were the
authors/ editors. The RFC Editor wasn't the author, an
editor, or the owner of the document. The RFC Editor
acted as the agent of the author in adding any
boilerplate and licenses, whether it was the early
"...
distribution unlimited..." or the current pages of
ISOC/
IETF Trust boilerplate.
(2) If there was more than one author, they were the
compilers of the document as a group and their joint
efforts produced the document from their work and any
other work that they incorporated and took
responsibility for having the rights to use.
(3) The author(s) granted the community the right to
reproduce and use, but retained, as a group if there was
more than one, "all rights" from a legal sense.
This, if taken as "the whole truth", does not seem
consistent with the
model that's been in -incoming for a while, where the IETF
Trust has
some rights in the RFC series, at least to the point of
requiring that
derived works not be presented
as RFCs in the RFC series.
Input is sought on this issue.
The other issue, raised by Jorge Contreras, concerns the
split of the
work of this WG into two documents (-incoming and
-outgoing); if we
start having language in the -incoming document granting
some outgoing
rights, the separation becomes rather blurred from his
perspective.
The opposite viewpoint is that the two documents have
distinct audiences
and distinct status in the IETF process, and that it
therefore makes no
sense to merge them; such a merge would also be inconsistent
with the
charter of the WG.
Input is sought on this issue too.
Harald Alvestrand, WG chair
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|