Simon - I disagree with much of what you used as
justification for this
submission briefing type document idea - but the idea itself
is good and
this content SHOULD be added to the submission release for
when a document
is submitted to the IETF -
In fact, Rosen-San for all the bashing you and I do here on
this list - I
think you personally should write this guidance document -
it should contain
instructions for filing these IP's with the IETF, and a set
of statements
about Open Source and possibly links to the OSI policy and
FAQ for more
information.
As the OSI's ex-General Counsel there is probably no one
better to write the
piece about open source submissions to the IETF and what
they ential and
require.
More commentary inline below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Josefsson" <jas extundo.com>
To: "David B Harrington" <dbharringtoncomcast.net>
Cc: "'Thomas Narten'" <nartenus.ibm.com>; <lrosenrosenlaw.com>;
<ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: #1175 Code vs text - second attempt at
resolution
> "David B Harrington" <dbharringtoncomcast.net> writes:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:jasextundo.com]
> >>
> >> Do those with that opinion participate in this
WG? I wish they
> > would
> >> give their justification
> >>
> > Yes. I hold that view and I participate in this
WG.
> >
> > When I author a document, I am willing to grant
copyrights to the IETF
> > for standards work.
>
> For standard works to be useful, implementations are
required, and
> you'd help get interoperable implementations by
releasing rights to
> the document. This is especially important when the
document contains
> source code or data tables.
>
> I don't see why you would be interested in
standardizing something but
> not be interested helping others to implement your
standard.
And that is the problem here ... Your views are restricted
to a process that
honors that all this property is the worlds - and its not.
At least not
yet.
>
> > But I do not choose to give the IETF the right to
decide for me
> > whether other people should also be granted such
rights for purposes
> > other than standards work.
>
> The current draft in this WG would give the IETF that
right, if I
> understand it correctly.
yes ad this is a VEY important statement since it implies
that there are
contractual changes in the IETF's process and engagement
policies that it is
not getting arrpoval from before unilaterally altering
contracts it has in
place with hundreds if not thousands of particpants.
The IETF's current submission model from my workflow
analysis not only
transfers copyrights by patent rights as well through the
unconstrained use
of the "Any and All Uses" language which is not
limited or roped-in by the
addition of "any and all publication uses for the
Standards Process
Development"
>
> >> Perhaps one way forward would be to write a
document that explain
> > what
> >> RFC authors can do to help free software
developers use their
> >> documents. For example, what additional
license grant they can put
> > in
> >> their documents. Does anyone think such a
document would belong in
> >> this WG?
yes - it clearly is an IPR disclosure and so its home is
here. But this
should be part of the submissions boiler plate not a
separate document.
> >
> > I do not. It is not an IETF concern.
> > It is an issue between the potential-consumer and
the author(s) that
> > produced it.
>
> I'm less convinced here. The document would affect
what goes into
> RFCs, and thus in some sense could be considered an
IETF matter.
If its in the release boiler plate it does
> But
> it may be that the current IPR WG charter doesn't
cover this work, and
> if so, I won't pursue it within this WG. The document
would surely
> benefit from review from this WG, though.
>
> > Such a document certainly could be written as an
Informational draft
> > from an individual, though.
> > And because I believe open source is generally a
good thing, I
> > encourage you to do so.
>
> The idea of producing such a document has come up a few
times before,
> and it seems like one way to make some progress on this
issue.
>
> When I have asked RFC authors whether they are willing
to release some
> rights to their document, I've so far ended up these
states:
>
> 1) The authors didn't believe he had the rights
anymore, and cited
> the ISOC copyright in the document and said the
ISOC owned the
> document now. IIRC, this was for the IDNA
documents.
>
> 2) The authors agreed to release (parts of) the
document under a free
> license. This was for most authors of the Kerberos
ASN.1 schema,
> and maybe (I don't remember) also the GSS-API
header.
>
> 3) The authors changed the copying conditions in the
document before
> it was published. This was for the SHA-2 document.
>
> 4) It was difficult (i.e., time-consuming) to chase
down the current
> address of the author, or the author never
responded. This was
> for two authors on the Kerberos ASN.1 schema.
If you had asked me about the ACTS I-D I would have told you
the IETF cannot
control its Copyright - that belongs to NIST and is done so
under the
Federal Use rules for government developed IP's.
>
> What is interesting here is that no author so far
explicitly
> disagreed, and said they didn't want to release the
document under a
> free license.
Hmmm - Asking the right question of the wrong person gets
you the wrong
answer...
The AUTHORS were speaking for themselves and NOT their
Sponsers and that is
the disconnect - ask those same questions of the General
Counsel's of the
Participant's Sponsers and YOU WILL GET THE ANSWER YOU ARE
FEARING MOST.
>
> Thus, a document that explain the reasons for releasing
additional
> rights to documents, and suggested license text to do
so, appear to be
> useful. If for nothing else, to point at when I
contact RFC authors
> in the future.
I would agree - and it should be a part of the release
contract for
submission of media for publishing.
>
> /Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|