On 2008-08-16 05:44, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote: > I agree with John, and expect that if the IETF Trust will now be allowed > to take an expired ID, and do with it want it wants outside of the > standards process, I read the text of RFC 2026 as Simon does, but RFC 3667 and 3978 added the phrase "within the IETF Standards Process" to the derivative works rights (clause 3.3.a.(C) ). However, that phrase was removed from the equivalent clause 5.3.(C) of draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming. Also, draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights says: "4.2. Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit the quoting without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions. Such excerpts may be of any length and in any context. Translation of quotations is also to be permitted. All such quotations should be attributed properly to the IETF and the IETF contribution from which they are taken." There doesn't seem to be much doubt of the IPR WG's intention to change this. I've just re-read the IPR WG charter, and this sort of adjustment seems to be in scope. > the result will (appropriately) be to have more > finely tuned IPR declarations, which make it clear that the declaration > is targeted at the specific standard in question, and is not applicable > beyond that, inside or outside of the IETF standardization process. As > far as I can tell, there is, and should be, nothing that prohibits IPR > holders from making such refined declarations, But there is. The derivative works statements are limited to those allowed in the Legend Instructions; see clause 6c in http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF_Trust_Legal_Provisions_for_IETF_Docs_8-13-08.pdf > and such declarations > will easily meet the requirements for being a valid IPR declaration to > the IETF. IMO this simply underscores the valid separation of patent > rights and copyright rights in the IETF process, that some still seem to > be confused over. I don't see that. IPR disclosures are about patents. The derivative works language is about text. Brian > > > Regards, > Chuck > ------------- > Chuck Powers, > Motorola, Inc > phone: 512-427-7261 > mobile: 512-576-0008 > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of John C Klensin >> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:23 PM >> To: Simon Josefsson >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions >> >> >> >> --On Friday, August 15, 2008 4:48 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson >> <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> However, the IPR WG, in its wisdom, has concluded, in some >> phrasing >>>> that was changed fairly late in the game, that the IETF >> Trust should >>>> get enough rights in I-Ds to authorize all sorts of >> subsequent uses >>>> of them and their content, with no time limit. >>> You have claimed this before, but I don't understand it. RFC >>> 2026 says that the IETF receives a fairly broad license to >> do anything >>> it wants with all contributions, see section 10.3.1: >> I believe that, subject to the "you can't really use this" >> disclaimers allowed by 2026, the IETF has the right to do >> just about anything it wants or needs to do with text in an >> I-D, active or expired, as long as doing that is part of the >> standards process. I agree that 2026 is clear about that, as >> were precedents before it. And, referring to one of your >> earlier notes, I think that includes pulling text out of an >> I-D that has been expired for years and years and >> incorporating it into a new I-D, publishing it as an RFC, etc. >> >> I also believe it is absolutely necessary for the IETF to have >> those rights. I did not intend my note to say anything else >> and hope I've been consistent about that over the years. >> >>> ... >>> Is your objection that the Trust is now authorized to grant uses >>> outside of the IETF process? >> I believe that there is nothing in 2026 that allows the IETF, >> ISOC, or the trust to grant any rights, or any sort, to >> anyone to do anything with text in I-Ds (or other >> contributions) outside of use _by the IETF_ (i.e., as part of >> the standards process). The ability of the Trust to grant >> such rights originates with assumptions about the Trust >> itself and, in detail, in the recent "inbound" and "outbound" >> rights documents. >> I believe that the approach taken in those documents wrt >> I-Ds, especially expired I-Ds, is wrong and that we will >> eventually regret it. YMMD and I am clearly in the minority >> on that subject. >> >> That said, because I believe the IETF has the absolute right >> to pick up prior I-D text at any point and reuse it, I >> believe that disclosure statements that were made while the >> I-D was active have to be retained for that long, i.e., to a >> good approximation >> of forever. Ted's comments about how meaningful those earlier >> disclosure statements are and for how long are very much >> relevant to this, but I don't think change the retention period. >> And, even if my "no new disclosures for expired I-Ds" >> proposal were adopted, I think it would be reasonable to >> permit comments that provided explanations about licensing or >> release status or forward pointers to disclosures associated >> with more recent or superceding documents. >> >> john >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf