#1175 Code vs text

John C Klensin <johnjck.com> writes:

> The other issue, which ought to be orthogonal to this
but
> impacts it, is that I-Ds are different from published,
archival,
> RFCs.  Formally, I-Ds expire after six months and all
rights,
> except those covered by the Note Well, revert to the
author.

Remind me please, just what rights do the IETF (or
implementors)
"lose" upon ID expiration? (Are you talking
about more than the right
to use "copyrighted" code?)

General comment: One of the things that continually bothers
me about
these discussions is the notion that the IETF may have
insufficient
rights to use an IETF contribution and that we are still
somewhat
beholden to the whims of the "author" of an IETF
Contribution. IMO, we
need to move completely and totally away from that. That is,
if
something is an IETF Contribution, there should be no doubts
that the
IETF has the necessary rights to use that contribution -
from that day
forward with no going back. If an author doesn't like that,
they
aren't making an "IETF Contribution", they are
doing something else,
and we should discourage such contributions generally. (And,
none of
the above says we should be taking away rights from an
author, other
than the right to restrict the IETF's usage of the
document.)

And, I think it's worth remembering that when one has an
author (or is
it an editor?) of say, a WG document, the notion that that
author has
rights that may possibly impact the ablity of the IETF/WG
(and
implementations) to use that document in the future,
something is
rather broken. After all, the WG as a whole has contributed
to the
document.

The IETF (as a whole) will not be able to function if it is
not very
clear that:

a) once a document is an IETF Contribution, the IETF (and
   implementors) have all the necessary rights going
forward.. (where
   necessary means thoses we have agreed are necessary,
e.g., as
   enshrined in RFCs)

b) the overwhelming majority of documents discussed in the
IETF are
   such documents, and in no cases is a WG document not such
a
   document.

Thomas

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

--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 09:37 -0400 Thomas Narten
<nartenus.ibm.com> wrote:

> John C Klensin <johnjck.com> writes:
> 
>> The other issue, which ought to be orthogonal to
this but
>> impacts it, is that I-Ds are different from
published,
>> archival, RFCs.  Formally, I-Ds expire after six
months and
>> all rights, except those covered by the Note Well,
revert to
>> the author.
> 
> Remind me please, just what rights do the IETF (or
> implementors) "lose" upon ID expiration?
(Are you talking
> about more than the right to use
"copyrighted" code?)

Thomas, please note the "except those covered by the
Note Well"
above.  That is the entire point of my note... and the
pointless
of most of this discussion.  The intent of the "Note
Well" is to
give the IETF permanent, irrevocable, and unlimited rights
to
use, for its purposes and in the development and
dissemination
of standards, any words or combination of words that are
written, uttered, projected on a screen in an IETF context,
or
otherwise introduced into the IETF.

Asking that those rights be granted redundantly or
additional
times doesn't create more rights or limits on the rights
granted
by the Note Well.  At best, it just introduces more
confusion.  

If one posted an I-D without a single word of boilerplate or
any
reference to the word "copyright", it would not
impact the
rights of the IETF at all, nor would it reduce the author's
responsibilities under the patent, etc., disclosure policy
(since that is covered in the Note Well also).  

Consequently, as far as the IETF's rights are concerned,
the
only value that boilerplate serves is to remind people that
license grants have been made and disclosure obligations
accepted.  It doesn't change anything.

>From that point of view, this entire discussion is about
what
rights, in addition to those covered by the Note Well,
authors
need to grant as a condition of posting an I-D or publishing
a
document.  Those rights and licenses, if any, have to do
with
use by people and organizations other than the IETF. 
Anything
the IETF itself needs should be covered by the Note Well...
and,
if it isn't, that had better be fixed within Note Well
because,
otherwise, there are all sorts of ways to game or defeat the
system. 

It is my contention that, as long as we say that I-Ds expire
in
six months, any _additional_ rights that are granted by the
author as the consequence of I-D publication expire too.  
As
far as IETF usage is concerned, there are no such additional
rights so there is nothing to expire.

So...

> General comment: One of the things that continually
bothers me
> about these discussions is the notion that the IETF may
have
> insufficient rights to use an IETF contribution and
that we
> are still somewhat beholden to the whims of the
"author" of an
> IETF Contribution. IMO, we need to move completely and
totally
> away from that. That is, if something is an IETF
Contribution,
> there should be no doubts that the IETF has the
necessary
> rights to use that contribution - from that day forward
with
> no going back. If an author doesn't like that, they
aren't
> making an "IETF Contribution", they are
doing something else,
> and we should discourage such contributions generally.
(And,
> none of the above says we should be taking away rights
from an
> author, other than the right to restrict the IETF's
usage of
> the document.)

That is precisely what the "Note Well" is
intended to
accomplish.  As far as I know, it accomplishes it. 
Certainly
there has been zero discussion about areas in which it is
inadequate.

> And, I think it's worth remembering that when one has
an
> author (or is it an editor?) of say, a WG document, the
notion
> that that author has rights that may possibly impact
the
> ablity of the IETF/WG (and implementations) to use that
> document in the future, something is rather broken.
After all,
> the WG as a whole has contributed to the document.

And the WG as a whole, and all or its participants, have
agreed
to IETF use of those contributions as a consequence of the
Note
Well.
 
> The IETF (as a whole) will not be able to function if
it is
> not very clear that:
> 
> a) once a document is an IETF Contribution, the IETF
(and
>    implementors) have all the necessary rights going
forward..
> (where    necessary means thoses we have agreed are
necessary,
> e.g., as    enshrined in RFCs)
> 
> b) the overwhelming majority of documents discussed in
the
> IETF are    such documents, and in no cases is a WG
document
> not such a    document.

Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well is, I
believe,
actually more comprehensive than your requirements above. 
When
I hit "send" on this note, both its words and
its underlying
content become the IETF's to use, forever, in any fashion
that
is supportive of the IETF's work and processes. 
Acknowledgement
is a courtesy (and might be required by other rules), but is
not
a requirement for IETF use of either text or ideas.  Issues
arise about non-IETF uses, but they are separate issues.

     john


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

And this leads, for me, to the natural question:
over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose of the
copyright 
notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 10:10 AM 6/7/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
>Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well is, I
believe,
>actually more comprehensive than your requirements
above.  When
>I hit "send" on this note, both its words
and its underlying
>content become the IETF's to use, forever, in any
fashion that
>is supportive of the IETF's work and processes. 
Acknowledgement
>is a courtesy (and might be required by other rules),
but is not
>a requirement for IETF use of either text or ideas. 
Issues
>arise about non-IETF uses, but they are separate issues.
>
>      john


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

Joel,

I could not agree more.  As others have pointed out, this WG
keeps losing focus on what it is talking about and then
going
around in circles.

My own belief is that, based on that experience, we should
be
trying something different:

(1) At least temporarily, clear the issue tracker -- it
seems to
be getting our noses up against individual leaves on trees,
which prevents a look at the whole tree, much less the
forest.

(2) Assume that all of the rights the IETF needs should come
out
of the Note Well, if only because binding those rights to,
e.g.,
RFCs or I-Ds, might subject us to interference if an idea
were
picked up from a comment in a meeting or email message.

(3) Ask if there are rights that the IETF needs that are not
covered by the Note Well.  If there are such additional
rights,
generate a comprehensive statement of principles about
rights
that the IETF heeds and reach consensus on that statement of
principles.  Note that is "principles about rights
that the IETF
needs" and not "principles about what should be
added to the
Note Well". (See (6) below.)

(4) Only when (3) is settled, ask what rights the IETF
wishes to
ensure others have in I-Ds in addition to the IETF's own
rights.
If there are any, consider whether either of the principles
"expires in six months" or "Internet
Drafts are not an archival
publication series" can survive those rights grants
and changes.
If so, seek changes in IETF procedures that would adjust
those
principles -- if changes to process principles are needed to
grant, or require granting, additional rights, unless the
community will sign off on those changes of process,
decisions
by this WG about them are moot. If there are any such rights
consistent with IETF process (or if the processes can be
modified appropriately), reach consensus on a statement of
principles as to what they are (see (6) below).

(5) Only when (4) is settled, ask what rights the IETF
wishes to
ensure others have in RFCs in addition the IETF's own
rights.
If there are any such rights, reach consensus on a statement
of
principles as to what they are and, if those rights should
apply
differentially to different materials, or parts of
materials,
published as RFCs, how to delimit which materials are which.
Develop a statement of principles as to what these rights
and
boundaries are and reach consensus on that statement.

(6) Once consensus is reached on those statements of desired
rights, pass them to counsel for drafting of text.   When
the
counsel-drafted text is ready, review and approve that text
in
the WG and the IETF, iterating if needed.

At this point, I have become convinced that the text should
be
writen de novo.  Trying to patch or add to existing text has
just helped create the muddle we are so obviously in.   In
particular, I believe that any statements in either RFCs or
I-Ds
that simply reaffirm or remind people about rights granted
by
the Note Well should explicitly reference that document as
the
source of those rights, rather than trying to repeat the
grant
of rights in different language.  Until and unless advised
otherwise by counsel, I believe that the database principle
that
one avoids problems by having a given information item in
only
one place, rather than having [near] duplicates floating
around
that can get out of synch, applies to this sort of work too.

I am not sure that is the only way forward, but I think we
now
have extensive "running code" that the way we
have been trying
to do it is (i) not working as  a process for getting
somewhere
and (ii) when it produces a document, that document tends to
not
be a close fit with what we are trying to accomplish.  

        john



--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 10:39 -0400 "Joel M.
Halpern"
<joelstevecrocker.com> wrote:

> And this leads, for me, to the natural question:
> over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose of
the
> copyright notice or other rights notices we put in the
I-Ds?
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> At 10:10 AM 6/7/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well
is, I
>> believe, actually more comprehensive than your
requirements
>> above.  When I hit "send" on this note,
both its words and
>> its underlying content become the IETF's to use,
forever, in
>> any fashion that is supportive of the IETF's work
and
>> processes.  Acknowledgement is a courtesy (and
might be
>> required by other rules), but is not a requirement
for IETF
>> use of either text or ideas.  Issues arise about
non-IETF
>> uses, but they are separate issues.
>> 
>>      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

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> And this leads, for me, to the natural question:
> over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose of
the copyright 
> notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?

I believe that they constitute fair warning to third parties
that the conditions John has described apply.

     Brian
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> At 10:10 AM 6/7/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well
is, I believe,
>> actually more comprehensive than your requirements
above.  When
>> I hit "send" on this note, both its
words and its underlying
>> content become the IETF's to use, forever, in any
fashion that
>> is supportive of the IETF's work and processes. 
Acknowledgement
>> is a courtesy (and might be required by other
rules), but is not
>> a requirement for IETF use of either text or ideas.
 Issues
>> arise about non-IETF uses, but they are separate
issues.
>>
>>      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

This , that Note Well and all the related RFCs apply to the
document,
is a clear definition of purpose, and one which, if we have
consensus 
that it is what we want we can
document in the IPR RFC
get useful legal advice on the best way of achieving

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 06:57 AM 6/14/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>And this leads, for me, to the natural question:
>>over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose of
the copyright 
>>notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?
>
>I believe that they constitute fair warning to third
parties
>that the conditions John has described apply.
>
>     Brian
>>Yours,
>>Joel M. Halpern
>>At 10:10 AM 6/7/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>>Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well
is, I believe,
>>>actually more comprehensive than your
requirements above.  When
>>>I hit "send" on this note, both its
words and its underlying
>>>content become the IETF's to use, forever, in
any fashion that
>>>is supportive of the IETF's work and processes.
 Acknowledgement
>>>is a courtesy (and might be required by other
rules), but is not
>>>a requirement for IETF use of either text or
ideas.  Issues
>>>arise about non-IETF uses, but they are separate
issues.
>>>
>>>      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

--On Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:57 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<brczurich.ibm.com> wrote:

> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> And this leads, for me, to the natural question:
>> over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose
of the
>> copyright  notice or other rights notices we put in
the I-Ds?
>
> I believe that they constitute fair warning to third
parties
> that the conditions John has described apply.

While that may be reasonable, I note two things...

(1) The amount and detail of boilerplate text is wildly out
of 
proportion relative to what would be needed to do that job.

(2) We do not insist that, e.g., notes posted to IETF
mailing 
lists start off (or finish) by saying "I understand
that this 
note is subject to the Note Well".  It is not clear
why special 
and laborious notices are needed in one case and not the
other.

      john






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