Additional Copyright notices in IETF documents

Hi.  The draft below argues for permitting multiple
copyrights in IETF
documents.  I'd like to raise this as an issue within this
WG, because
RFC 3978 section 5.4 was a major discussion item in the IESG
before
approving RFC 3548bis, and one of the suggested ways to
proceed was to
produce a document that alter's RFC 3978.

In particular, I'd appreciate Jorge's input on whether
this approach
would be impossible to adopt for the IETF for some legal
reason.
Given how often documents have multiple copyrights, I'd be
surprised
if there are any legal issue that can't be resolved without
altering
the intent of this document.

In general, is there interest in adopting this document in
the WG?

Thanks,
Simon

> 	Title		: RFC 3978 Update Regarding Additional
Copyright Notices
> 	Filename	: draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
> 	
> RFC 3978 disallow additional copyright notices in IETF
Documents, but
> the running code within the IETF appear to be to ignore
that rule and
> publish documents with additional copyright notices. 
There are
> arguments for permitting additional copyright notices
in IETF
> documents, and some are given in this document.  This
document update
> the paragraph in RFC 3978 that discusses additional
copyrights, to
> relax the requirement.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt

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

Simon,

I have entered the issue of multiple copyright statements
into the 
tracker as issue #1282.

I recommend that people read the document and make comments
using this 
number in the subject line.

Jorge identifies the issue of identifying which parts are
under which 
copyright; as we have discussed before, this often becomes 
next-to-impossible when there are multiple contributors to a
document.

                             Harald

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Hi.  The draft below argues for permitting multiple
copyrights in IETF
>documents.  I'd like to raise this as an issue within
this WG, because
>RFC 3978 section 5.4 was a major discussion item in the
IESG before
>approving RFC 3548bis, and one of the suggested ways to
proceed was to
>produce a document that alter's RFC 3978.
>
>In particular, I'd appreciate Jorge's input on whether
this approach
>would be impossible to adopt for the IETF for some legal
reason.
>Given how often documents have multiple copyrights, I'd
be surprised
>if there are any legal issue that can't be resolved
without altering
>the intent of this document.
>
>In general, is there interest in adopting this document
in the WG?
>
>Thanks,
>Simon
>
>  
>
>>	Title		: RFC 3978 Update Regarding Additional
Copyright Notices
>>	Filename	: draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
>>	
>>RFC 3978 disallow additional copyright notices in
IETF Documents, but
>>the running code within the IETF appear to be to
ignore that rule and
>>publish documents with additional copyright notices.
 There are
>>arguments for permitting additional copyright
notices in IETF
>>documents, and some are given in this document. 
This document update
>>the paragraph in RFC 3978 that discusses additional
copyrights, to
>>relax the requirement.
>>
>>
>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Simon,
>
> I have entered the issue of multiple copyright
statements into the
> tracker as issue #1282.

Thanks!

> Jorge identifies the issue of identifying which parts
are under which
> copyright; as we have discussed before, this often
becomes
> next-to-impossible when there are multiple contributors
to a document.

I disagree.  For the case that prompted this draft, there
are two
copyrights.  And, yes, the draft has many contributors; they
either
assigned the copyright to the FSF or the contribution was
not legally
significant.  One is for the code included in the document. 
It is
easy to identify where the code ends and where it starts. 
The other
is for specific text sections that I wrote, and the copying
condition
is explicit about which sections are covered by that
copyright.

So I don't think it is next-to-impossible to do this.  In
some
situations (one author, one copyright holder), it is trivial
to do.

Note that I don't challenge that there may be conceivable
scenarios
where it is next-to-impossible to implement this, but I
don't see that
as conflicting with the goal of my draft, and thus not
relevant.  In
those cases, you simply will have to avoid adding extra
copyrights.  I
expect that approach to continue to be the norm for some
time.  Few
current IETF authors appear to want the additional
protection that
goes with an explicit copyright notice.

Regards,
Simon

>                             Harald
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>>Hi.  The draft below argues for permitting multiple
copyrights in IETF
>>documents.  I'd like to raise this as an issue
within this WG, because
>>RFC 3978 section 5.4 was a major discussion item in
the IESG before
>>approving RFC 3548bis, and one of the suggested ways
to proceed was to
>>produce a document that alter's RFC 3978.
>>
>>In particular, I'd appreciate Jorge's input on
whether this approach
>>would be impossible to adopt for the IETF for some
legal reason.
>>Given how often documents have multiple copyrights,
I'd be surprised
>>if there are any legal issue that can't be resolved
without altering
>>the intent of this document.
>>
>>In general, is there interest in adopting this
document in the WG?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Simon
>>
>>  
>>
>>>	Title		: RFC 3978 Update Regarding Additional
Copyright Notices
>>>	Filename	: draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
>>>	
>>>RFC 3978 disallow additional copyright notices
in IETF Documents, but
>>>the running code within the IETF appear to be to
ignore that rule and
>>>publish documents with additional copyright
notices.  There are
>>>arguments for permitting additional copyright
notices in IETF
>>>documents, and some are given in this document. 
This document update
>>>the paragraph in RFC 3978 that discusses
additional copyrights, to
>>>relax the requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Simon,
>>
>>I have entered the issue of multiple copyright
statements into the
>>tracker as issue #1282.
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks!
>
>  
>
>>Jorge identifies the issue of identifying which
parts are under which
>>copyright; as we have discussed before, this often
becomes
>>next-to-impossible when there are multiple
contributors to a document.
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree.  For the case that prompted this draft,
there are two
>copyrights.  And, yes, the draft has many contributors;
they either
>assigned the copyright to the FSF or the contribution
was not legally
>significant. 
>
aside: what metric do you use to determine "not
legally significant"?

> One is for the code included in the document.  It is
>easy to identify where the code ends and where it
starts.  The other
>is for specific text sections that I wrote, and the
copying condition
>is explicit about which sections are covered by that
copyright.
>
>So I don't think it is next-to-impossible to do this. 
In some
>situations (one author, one copyright holder), it is
trivial to do.
>  
>
On the other hand, consider RFC 4450.
I wrote the first version of that. And commented extensively
on later 
versions.
But I have absolutely no way, this late, to figure out which
parts could 
be considered "mine" and which could be
considered Elliot's.

Or the case of draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-08 - a number of
editors, even 
more contributors, and lots of "suggested text"
being incorporated 
verbatim - some of it mine.

In *many* cases, it is next-to-impossible. And that was *my*
entire point.

>Note that I don't challenge that there may be
conceivable scenarios
>where it is next-to-impossible to implement this, but I
don't see that
>as conflicting with the goal of my draft, and thus not
relevant.  In
>those cases, you simply will have to avoid adding extra
copyrights.  I
>expect that approach to continue to be the norm for some
time.  Few
>current IETF authors appear to want the additional
protection that
>goes with an explicit copyright notice.
>
>Regards,
>Simon
>
>  
>
>>                            Harald
>>
>>Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi.  The draft below argues for permitting
multiple copyrights in IETF
>>>documents.  I'd like to raise this as an issue
within this WG, because
>>>RFC 3978 section 5.4 was a major discussion item
in the IESG before
>>>approving RFC 3548bis, and one of the suggested
ways to proceed was to
>>>produce a document that alter's RFC 3978.
>>>
>>>In particular, I'd appreciate Jorge's input on
whether this approach
>>>would be impossible to adopt for the IETF for
some legal reason.
>>>Given how often documents have multiple
copyrights, I'd be surprised
>>>if there are any legal issue that can't be
resolved without altering
>>>the intent of this document.
>>>
>>>In general, is there interest in adopting this
document in the WG?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Simon
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>	Title		: RFC 3978 Update Regarding
Additional Copyright Notices
>>>>	Filename	:
draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
>>>>	
>>>>RFC 3978 disallow additional copyright
notices in IETF Documents, but
>>>>the running code within the IETF appear to
be to ignore that rule and
>>>>publish documents with additional copyright
notices.  There are
>>>>arguments for permitting additional
copyright notices in IETF
>>>>documents, and some are given in this
document.  This document update
>>>>the paragraph in RFC 3978 that discusses
additional copyrights, to
>>>>relax the requirement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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

Hi,

Should we develop a copyright transfer boilerplate that says
"The
authors transfer all copyrights in this document to the IETF
for
whatever purpose the IETF deems fit."?

Maybe I'm naïve, but to my knowledge most WG editors who
are "authors"
working on a WG document do not really think much about
holding the
copyright on the document. If WG documents included a
release of the
copyrights to the IETF, then if another SDO, for example,
wants to be
able to copy a document and make modifications, the other
SDO can
simply ask the IETF for the rights, without having to track
down the
authors.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:jasextundo.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:18 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: Re: #1282 Re: Additional Copyright notices in
IETF
documents
> 
> 
> Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
> 
> > Simon,
> >
> > I have entered the issue of multiple copyright
statements into the
> > tracker as issue #1282.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Jorge identifies the issue of identifying which
parts are 
> under which
> > copyright; as we have discussed before, this often
becomes
> > next-to-impossible when there are multiple
contributors to 
> a document.
> 
> I disagree.  For the case that prompted this draft,
there are two
> copyrights.  And, yes, the draft has many contributors;
they either
> assigned the copyright to the FSF or the contribution
was not
legally
> significant.  One is for the code included in the
document.  It is
> easy to identify where the code ends and where it
starts.  The other
> is for specific text sections that I wrote, and the
copying
condition
> is explicit about which sections are covered by that
copyright.
> 
> So I don't think it is next-to-impossible to do this. 
In some
> situations (one author, one copyright holder), it is
trivial to do.
> 
> Note that I don't challenge that there may be
conceivable scenarios
> where it is next-to-impossible to implement this, but I
don't see
that
> as conflicting with the goal of my draft, and thus not
relevant.  In
> those cases, you simply will have to avoid adding extra
copyrights.
I
> expect that approach to continue to be the norm for
some time.  Few
> current IETF authors appear to want the additional
protection that
> goes with an explicit copyright notice.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
> >                             Harald
> >
> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >>Hi.  The draft below argues for permitting
multiple 
> copyrights in IETF
> >>documents.  I'd like to raise this as an issue
within this 
> WG, because
> >>RFC 3978 section 5.4 was a major discussion
item in the IESG
before
> >>approving RFC 3548bis, and one of the suggested
ways to 
> proceed was to
> >>produce a document that alter's RFC 3978.
> >>
> >>In particular, I'd appreciate Jorge's input
on whether this
approach
> >>would be impossible to adopt for the IETF for
some legal reason.
> >>Given how often documents have multiple
copyrights, I'd be
surprised
> >>if there are any legal issue that can't be
resolved without
altering
> >>the intent of this document.
> >>
> >>In general, is there interest in adopting this
document in the WG?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Simon
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>>	Title		: RFC 3978 Update Regarding
Additional 
> Copyright Notices
> >>>	Filename	:
draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
> >>>	
> >>>RFC 3978 disallow additional copyright
notices in IETF 
> Documents, but
> >>>the running code within the IETF appear to
be to ignore 
> that rule and
> >>>publish documents with additional copyright
notices.  There are
> >>>arguments for permitting additional
copyright notices in IETF
> >>>documents, and some are given in this
document.  This 
> document update
> >>>the paragraph in RFC 3978 that discusses
additional copyrights,
to
> >>>relax the requirement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-i
pr-not
ices-00.txt
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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


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

I'm surprised that this has become an issue.

Copyright law allows the author of a collective or
derivative work to place
only one copyright notice--in our case IETF's own copyright
notice--on the
work, which neither mentions nor overrides the copyrights on
the individual
contributions to the work.

Separate from this legal copyright notice issue, however, is
the good
practice of acknowledging the contributors to an IETF
specification. You can
do that either by copying those contributors' copyright
notices, or merely
by saying "thanks to the following
people/companies" somewhere in the
document.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)
Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and

                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice
Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:jasextundo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:18 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: Re: #1282 Re: Additional Copyright notices in
IETF documents
> 
> Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
> 
> > Simon,
> >
> > I have entered the issue of multiple copyright
statements into the
> > tracker as issue #1282.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Jorge identifies the issue of identifying which
parts are under which
> > copyright; as we have discussed before, this often
becomes
> > next-to-impossible when there are multiple
contributors to a document.
> 
> I disagree.  For the case that prompted this draft,
there are two
> copyrights.  And, yes, the draft has many contributors;
they either
> assigned the copyright to the FSF or the contribution
was not legally
> significant.  One is for the code included in the
document.  It is
> easy to identify where the code ends and where it
starts.  The other
> is for specific text sections that I wrote, and the
copying condition
> is explicit about which sections are covered by that
copyright.
> 
> So I don't think it is next-to-impossible to do this. 
In some
> situations (one author, one copyright holder), it is
trivial to do.
> 
> Note that I don't challenge that there may be
conceivable scenarios
> where it is next-to-impossible to implement this, but I
don't see that
> as conflicting with the goal of my draft, and thus not
relevant.  In
> those cases, you simply will have to avoid adding extra
copyrights.  I
> expect that approach to continue to be the norm for
some time.  Few
> current IETF authors appear to want the additional
protection that
> goes with an explicit copyright notice.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
> >                             Harald
> >
> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >>Hi.  The draft below argues for permitting
multiple copyrights in IETF
> >>documents.  I'd like to raise this as an issue
within this WG, because
> >>RFC 3978 section 5.4 was a major discussion
item in the IESG before
> >>approving RFC 3548bis, and one of the suggested
ways to proceed was to
> >>produce a document that alter's RFC 3978.
> >>
> >>In particular, I'd appreciate Jorge's input
on whether this approach
> >>would be impossible to adopt for the IETF for
some legal reason.
> >>Given how often documents have multiple
copyrights, I'd be surprised
> >>if there are any legal issue that can't be
resolved without altering
> >>the intent of this document.
> >>
> >>In general, is there interest in adopting this
document in the WG?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Simon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>	Title		: RFC 3978 Update Regarding
Additional Copyright
Notices
> >>>	Filename	:
draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
> >>>
> >>>RFC 3978 disallow additional copyright
notices in IETF Documents, but
> >>>the running code within the IETF appear to
be to ignore that rule and
> >>>publish documents with additional copyright
notices.  There are
> >>>arguments for permitting additional
copyright notices in IETF
> >>>documents, and some are given in this
document.  This document update
> >>>the paragraph in RFC 3978 that discusses
additional copyrights, to
> >>>relax the requirement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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


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

At 4:54 PM +0200 5/25/06, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>On the other hand, consider RFC 4450.
>I wrote the first version of that. And commented
extensively on later versions.
>But I have absolutely no way, this late, to figure out
which parts could be considered "mine" and which
could be considered Elliot's.
>
>Or the case of draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-08 - a number of
editors, even more contributors, and lots of
"suggested text" being incorporated verbatim -
some of it mine.
>
>In *many* cases, it is next-to-impossible. And that was
*my* entire point.

I think something got dropped here in the motivation.  In
Simon's case,
the extra copyright statements were attached in order to
identify who
had the ability to grant additional permissions on how the
work could be used. 
A statement granting those permissions is also included.

The copyright statements don't create any additional rights
for Simon;
they simply identify the salient bits of the document so the
permissions can
be granted.   (This goes to the same point Jorge made) In
the cases where there is
no need to identify parts of the  document for that purpose,
I don't think
additional copyright statements are  needed or should be
encouraged.  I think
most of our "multiple author" documents either
fall into the category "no
additional rights are being granted" or "the
authors would quickly agree on
additional rights", so I suspect this is less of a
nightmare than others appear to
believe.  In the draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-08 case, for
example, if the authors
and contributors have not indicated that they wish to grant
additional rights,
there is no need to identify any subparts for those grants. 
All of the authors
*must have* agreed to the basic license to the IETF, but
that's as far as I believe
we have to go in tracking authors' individual rights for
works for which
additional permissions are not being granted.

I also note that, assuming you agree Simon has retained the
rights to his text
beyond his license to the IETF, he could make a grant of
additional permission
by putting up a web page that said so.  Given that,
including the text of the
permission (and his assertion of the right to make) is just
a convenience for
the reader.  Permitting or denying it in the RFC relates
only to that convenience,
not to the rights of the author to do it.

Not speaking for anyone but my not-a-lawyer-self,

					Ted

 

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

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

>>>Jorge identifies the issue of identifying which
parts are under which
>>>copyright; as we have discussed before, this
often becomes
>>>next-to-impossible when there are multiple
contributors to a document.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>I disagree.  For the case that prompted this draft,
there are two
>>copyrights.  And, yes, the draft has many
contributors; they either
>>assigned the copyright to the FSF or the
contribution was not legally
>> significant. 
>>
> aside: what metric do you use to determine "not
legally significant"?

The recommendation within the FSF community, based on
lawyer's advice,
is that code changes below 10 lines of code is in general
not
sufficiently creative to require a copyright assignment on.

Because code is more verbose than text, I conservatively
translate
that to roughly one (small) paragraph of text with technical
content.
I don't recall any contribution to either code or my text
in that
document that were not either assigned to the FSF or longer
than this
limit, and I strive to be extremely careful when I
incorporate
material sent from others in my products, either code or
text.  The
reason I rationalize spending time on being careful here is
that I've
been forced to re-write code just because the copyright was
unclear,
and that took several months of work.

>> One is for the code included in the document.  It
is
>>easy to identify where the code ends and where it
starts.  The other
>>is for specific text sections that I wrote, and the
copying condition
>>is explicit about which sections are covered by that
copyright.
>>
>>So I don't think it is next-to-impossible to do
this.  In some
>>situations (one author, one copyright holder), it is
trivial to do.
>>  
>>
> On the other hand, consider RFC 4450.
> I wrote the first version of that. And commented
extensively on later
> versions.
> But I have absolutely no way, this late, to figure out
which parts
> could be considered "mine" and which could
be considered Elliot's.

Right, the authors, if they wish to claim copyright, need to
take
notes while they write and contribute to the document, and
be careful
when incorporating text from others.

If authors don't want to go through that effort (and I
expect most
IETF contributors fall into this set), simply avoiding to
add their
own copyright notice is likely the proper approach, which
you did.
That's fine, of course.

> Or the case of draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-08 - a number
of editors, even
> more contributors, and lots of "suggested
text" being incorporated
> verbatim - some of it mine.
>
> In *many* cases, it is next-to-impossible. And that was
*my* entire point.

Point taken.  However, I don't think it is an argument
against my
draft, here's why: IF a copyright notices is present, the
individual
who make it must be sure it is correct.  That places the
onus to
identify the sections on the person making the claim.  So if
the
author finds it too difficult to do this properly, she
should simply
avoid adding an explicit copyright notice.  My draft permits
this
approach.

If an author adds a copyright notice that apply to text he
didn't
wrote, that would be fraud, and we have a different set of
rules to
handle that behaviour (i.e., international copyright laws).

Regards,
Simon

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

Personal opinion: I think experience has shown that the
limitation
to a single (C) in RFC 3978 is occasionally a nuisance, so I
am
in favour of removing it. However, we don't want additional
notices
that place any restriction on the derivative works rights
needed
by the IETF, so we need to be sure that somebody (the IESG?)
has
the ability to prevent that kind of problem.

     Brian


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

Brian E Carpenter <brczurich.ibm.com> writes:

> Personal opinion: I think experience has shown that the
limitation
> to a single (C) in RFC 3978 is occasionally a nuisance,
so I am
> in favour of removing it. However, we don't want
additional notices
> that place any restriction on the derivative works
rights needed
> by the IETF

Right.

Wouldn't that be covered by the contributor agreeing to the
NOTE WELL
and BCP 78, though?

> so we need to be sure that somebody (the IESG?) has the
ability to
> prevent that kind of problem.

It seems fragile to have the IESG review this, it is too
easy to miss
things like this.  They've missed several additional
copyright notices
in recent RFCs.

Personally, I think this concern is fixed by the NOTE WELL. 
The NOTE
WELL gives the IETF a license to use contributions under the
rights it
needs.  An additional copyright notice in the document
doesn't change
what the contributor agreed to in the NOTE WELL.

If we need to do something to fix this concern, how about
explaining
the situation in the IETF license?  If it would say that
additional
copyright notices are present, they don't restrict on the
derivative
rights the IETF has, the situation should be clear.

/Simon

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