On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:47AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Bill Manning wrote: > > "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of > > Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works > > is not granted." > - and - > > So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a > > private ownership right in the materials they generated. I think > > that the IETF Trust should be very careful in using/reusing that > > material, esp w/o asking permission. > > This is consistent with what I've been saying, namely that IETF RFCs are > joint works of authorship. er... thats -NOT- what I was trying to point out. The IETF was given permission to publish an authors work but was not allowed to impune joint authorship. The IETF did not create the work - it provided a publication vehicle. > > 1. The fact that IETF never previously granted the right to produce > derivative works can easily be corrected by one of the joint copyright > owners, in this case the IETF Trust, now granting that license. As I > understand it, this is what Simon and others have been arguing for all along > for the IETF out-license. going forward, perhaps. retro-active, not so sure. > 2. The IETF Trust owns a joint copyright. That also means that we can't > object if the other joint copyright owners assert their own private > ownership rights in the materials they generated. Who's stopping them? None > of the joint owners needs to ask permission of IETF or any others to do > anything they want with those jointly-owned IETF RFCs. I think the basis of the argument revolves around the assertion of "joint" ownership. ... and there are concerns with all forms of communications over IETF sanctioned/sponsored channels - e.g. the "Note Well" - not just the RFC series. > > > There, I've spoken up ... reserving my right to speak now and later > > on this topic. (not going to "forever hold my peace"). > > Please excuse my poetic turn of phrase. As others have privately pointed out > to me, it is unlikely that anyone on here will respond to my plea to declare > their private claims any more than anyone does even at the worst of > weddings. That is another reason why the IETF Trust asking permission to do > what we wish with our own industry standards is such a futile exercise. > Hardly anyone has the courage or incentive to say "No" and publicly declare > their private ownership of our common standards. That is why we have to take > the risk to do what we need to do and simply dare anyone on here to sue IETF > when we allow certain kinds of derivative works. thats ok... i'm not really "anyone" so i am sorry for taking your statements at face value. > For the lawyers on here, I'm hoping that silence now, particularly by the > major IETF contributors on this list, will be interpreted as laches or > waiver if one of them later claims an exclusive copyright interest in any > IETF RFC. sorry - not waiving those rights to you or anyone else. --bill > > /Larry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@xxxxxxx] > > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 3:16 AM > > To: Lawrence Rosen > > Cc: 'IETF Discussion' > > Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your > > reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem > > > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > > > > > That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it > > personally > > > or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right > > in > > > any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your > > peace. > > > Otherwise, I think it best that the IETF Trust exercise its rights under > > its > > > joint copyright to do whatever is deemed appropriate and in the public > > > interest, as determined by the IETF Trustees and its legal counsel, and > > not > > > ask permission. > > > > > > /Larry > > > > > > > are you talking about -all- IETF related documents (IDs, postings, > > april 1st RFCs, etc...) or RFCs that are standards? (discounting > > BCPs, Informational RFCs, etc) > > > > for a period of time, text like this appeared in at least a dozen > > documents: > > > > "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of > > Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works > > is not granted." > > > > there were even a few documents that had explicit copyright > > statements > > that excluded ISOC & IETF from doing anything with the document, > > other > > than the right to publish for the period of performance for an ID, > > e.g. > > no longer than six months. > > > > one reaction to that was the promulgation of the "Note Well" legal > > advice > > and the path that lead us to this point. > > > > So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a > > private > > ownership right in the materials they generated. I think that the > > IETF > > Trust should be very careful in using/reusing that material, esp w/o > > asking permission. > > > > There, I've spoken up ... reserving my right to speak now and later > > on this > > topic. (not going to "forever hold my peace"). > > > > > > > > --bill > > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf