> Date: 2005-01-21 09:40 > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge > Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 1. ÂIntellectual Property. ÂI think I understand the reason for including > an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be > usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. ÂThe way this concept is expressed, > however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights > are actually conveyed and licensed. > > Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) [...] > Â Âcontract. ÂSome ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an > Â Âopen source license; an open source license is preferable. ÂThe IAD > Â Âshall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such > Â Âcontracts. > > Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) [...] > ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and > custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC > will not utilize or access such Developed Software in > connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without > the written consent of the IAD. ÂThe foregoing rights are not required > in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software > Âthat is not developed at the expense of ISOC. Verbosity aside, I don't believe that "sole control and custodianship" applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the "Old text" seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed "new text"; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf