Subject: Re: Copying conditions

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:35:50 +0100

[email-masked] (scott bradner) writes:

>   For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454 and use
>   them in my implementation.
>
>   For Kerberos, I want to be able to use the ASN.1 schema in my
>   implementation, and copy the terminology section into my manual.
>
>   For SASL, I want to incorporate portions of the introduction section
>   from the RFC into my manual, to make sure some terminology is
>   explained correctly.
>
>   For GSS-API, I want to be able to copy the C header file with function
>   prototypes into my implementation.
>
> just so there is no misunderstanding - the intent of RFC 3668 was to
> permit such extractions and there was (and is) no desire to restrict 
> such extractions
>
> I, as editor, state publicly that I think that RFC 3667 permits such 
> extractions, we (or maybe I) may have not made that clear enough in
> RFC 3667, but I think that RFC 3667 supports these uses

I have received preliminary feedback from IPR specialists that seem to
indicate to me that neither the old RFC copying conditions, nor the
new copying conditions in RFC 3667, would permit all of the above
extractions into free software.

I am working on getting them to explain their reasoning on the Free
Software Foundation's web pages (presumably at [1]), which I believe
would be useful input for the IPR working group, but the process has
been slow.  I hope I'm not putting words in their mouth by stating
that my interpretation of what they said is that there is a problem.

Do the IETF care about free software enough to work on modifying the
copying conditions of future RFCs?

I think it is worrying that for me, with no legal training, I cannot
find any way to read the current license to permit me to do the above
things.  Now it seems some specialists agree with my interpretation.
To my reading, the new conditions do not give me any rights at all.

I'm hesitant about basing the legal ground of my projects against my
own, and our specialists, interpretation, based only on your expressed
intent of the text, posted to a mailing list.  My only "protection"
seem to be that would the ISOC/IETF sue me for infringing on their
IPR, I can only hope that others in the community would react
negatively.  I'd like to have more assurance than that, if possible.

Thanks,
Simon

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:07:07 -0500

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> [email-masked] (scott bradner) writes:
    >> For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454
    >> and use them in my implementation.
    >> 
    >> For SASL, I want to incorporate portions of the introduction
    >> section from the RFC into my manual, to make sure some
    >> terminology is explained correctly.
    >> 
    >> For GSS-API, I want to be able to copy the C header file with
    >> function prototypes into my implementation.
    >> 
    >> just so there is no misunderstanding - the intent of RFC 3668
    >> was to permit such extractions and there was (and is) no desire
    >> to restrict such extractions
    >> 
    >> I, as editor, state publicly that I think that RFC 3667 permits
    >> such extractions, we (or maybe I) may have not made that clear
    >> enough in RFC 3667, but I think that RFC 3667 supports these
    >> uses

    Simon> I have received preliminary feedback from IPR specialists
    Simon> that seem to indicate to me that neither the old RFC
    Simon> copying conditions, nor the new copying conditions in RFC
    Simon> 3667, would permit all of the above extractions into free
    Simon> software.

    Simon> I am working on getting them to explain their reasoning on
    Simon> the Free Software Foundation's web pages (presumably at
    Simon> [1]), which I believe would be useful input for the IPR
    Simon> working group, but the process has been slow.  I hope I'm
    Simon> not putting words in their mouth by stating that my
    Simon> interpretation of what they said is that there is a
    Simon> problem.

    Simon> Do the IETF care about free software enough to work on
    Simon> modifying the copying conditions of future RFCs?

Speaking as an individual, *not* as an AD, I'd love to see the free
software community get together and give input to the IETF (possibly
in the form of an informational RFC) on the following issues:

1) Extracting tables and code from IETF standards for use in free/open-source software.

2) What patent holders who would like to license software should do if
   they want to create a license that open-source/free software
   authors can use when licensing technology in Internet standards.

Such input should explain what the requirements are and should give
both legal and practical reasoning to justify them.  Such input should
avoid trying to criticize or demand changes in the IETF, but instead
should focus on what the IETF would need to do if we need to make
parts of our RFCs extractable or what patent holders would need to do
to make licenses useful to the free software community.  I would
strongly recommend avoiding discussion of the general patent policies
of the IETF; arguments that the IETF should not use patented
technology will only serve to annoy people who might otherwise listen
to what you have to say.

I'd recommend that any such input accurately represent at least the
following parties positions':

1) The Free Software Foundation

2) The Open Source Initiative

3) The Debian Project

I believe all three of these parties have slightly incompatible views
on the issues in question.  It would be very frustrating to consider
such input only to discover that some segment of the open source
community still felt we had not addressed their concerns even though
the input was represented as complete.

If you do get free software people to talk to the IETF about IPR,
please find people who can work well in the consensus process.  People
who are good at explaining and understanding are better than people
who have firm convictions and are good at arguing.  However when
explaining the needs of external communities participants would need
to actually accurately represent these needs.  It would be unfortunate
if we came to a compromise that was acceptable to everyone involved in
the consensus process only to find that it was unacceptable to the
external community.

Good luck,

--Sam

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:53:52 -0800

>    authors can use when licensing technology in Internet standards.

I addressed your two items in the Open Standards Principles I emailed to
this list earlier this week. These principles describe the licenses that
must apply to copyrighted and patented IP in IETF specifications in order to
make them compatible with free and open source software.

With respect to copyrighted works (your item #1) contained in IETF
specifications to be used in free/open source software:

   1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official specification
      for an open standard under an open source license.

With respect to patent claims (your item #2) necessary to implement IETF
specifications in free/open source software:

   2. Everyone is free to make or use embodiments of an open standard 
      under unconditional licenses to patent claims necessary to 
      practice that standard.
   
   3. Everyone is free to distribute externally, sell, offer for sale, 
      have made or import embodiments of an open standard under patent
      licenses that may be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to 
      any of licensees' patent claims necessary to practice that standard.

   4. A patent license for an open standard may be terminated as to any
      licensee who sues the licensor or any other licensee for infringement
      of patent claims necessary to practice that standard. 

   5. All patent licenses necessary to practice an open standard are 
      worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual and sublicenseable.

If you think it would be useful to submit these five Open Standards
Principles as an informational RFC, certainly I can do that. But perhaps
they can be discussed here first in their current form without that
formality. I welcome comments and suggestions.

/Larry Rosen

Lawrence Rosen 
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 
email: [email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Sam Hartman
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Copying conditions
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:35:50 +0100

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:16:13 +0100

In general, I support your goal of permitting free software to fully
use IETF standards.  A few specific comments below, which should be
taken as encouragement to continue and refine the terms, not criticism
against the whole approach.

>       for an open standard under an open source license.

I would include "modify" in this clause, or clarify exactly which
license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).

If I want to include portions of an RFC in my software manual (e.g., a
terminology section), I want my users to have the right to modify that
portion of the manual and re-distribute the derived work.

I don't feel qualified to comment on the remaining patent related
points.

> formality. I welcome comments and suggestions.

If there is no broad discussion of these issues, perhaps publishing a
discussion of them as an informational RFC is the right thing.

I think the first goal here should be to make sure the IETF is aware
of the problem wrt free software.  Given the earlier discussion in
this thread, some IPR WG participants appeared to not even be aware
that there is a problem, which I found surprising if not disturbing.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:40:45 -0500

> license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).

IMHO, if "modify" is allowed, the license must require that modified 
versions are clearly distinguished from the official spec and thereby 
not-the-standard-you-were-looking-for.

						- Bill

---

From: Anthony DeRobertis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 05:04:46 -0500

> license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).

The GFDL is not an open-source or free software licence.

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:26:45 -0800

> not-the-standard-you-were-looking-for.

Thank you for this suggestion. I'm fine with adding the word "modify" if
that will clarify these Open Standards Principles. The words "under an open
source license" later in that sentence includes all the rights conveyed by
an open source license, such as the right to modify and distribute copies of
the specification, but saying it explicitly here makes good sense.

All open source licenses permit modification. IETF should also decide
whether to distribute its specifications under the GPL, OSL, SISSL or other
open source license that includes reciprocity, or under an academic license
that permits proprietary modifications of the specifications themselves.
 
Please note that the open source copyright license described in Principle 1
that applies to the specification itself may not be sufficient for you to
make, use or sell your modified, non-conforming versions. That is because
the affirmative patent licenses described in Principles 2 and 3 may be
limited in scope to "embodiments of an open standard." You may need to
obtain additional patent licenses from other companies in order to implement
non-standard functions in your software.

Almost all patent owners insist upon such field of use limitations in their
patent licenses for standards. Take a look at the patent statements filed
with the IETF and other standards organizations and you'll see this over and
over from most major companies. Open source can live with this; we already
agreed to do so in W3C.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:31:57 -0500

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> In general, I support your goal of permitting free software
    Simon> to fully use IETF standards.  A few specific comments
    Simon> below, which should be taken as encouragement to continue
    Simon> and refine the terms, not criticism against the whole
    Simon> approach.

    Simon> "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> 1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official
    >> specification for an open standard under an open source
    >> license.

    Simon> I would include "modify" in this clause, or clarify exactly
    Simon> which license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free
    Simon> Documentation License).

We've been over this before.  In my mind, there is not a consensus to
revise this part of the IETF IPR policy at this time.  I'm not the
chair of the IPR working group; this is just my opinion.

However by conflating issues where you could get support with issues
where you cannot get support you frustrate everyone and cause a lot of
us to want to ignore you.  If the open source community cannot work
within the IETF process in a spirit of compromise and consensus
building then that community will not make significant progress within
the IETF process.

Simon, you've identified a real issue the free software community has
using our standards.  If you do the leg work or find others who are
interested in doing the leg work, you have a good chance at getting
the problem you've identified fixed.  However if you tie fixing that
problem to other much more controversial issues, I doubt you will
succeed.

--Sam

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:01:44 +0100

(dropping the IETF list off this thread - it's an IPR list matter, really)

Simon,

suggestion for concrete action:

- Specify a grant of rights in documentation that satisfies the criteria 
that you want. Document them as an I-D or by other suitable means.

- Put in the next I-D you write a grant, in addition to those grants 
required under RFC 3667, referencing the specification above. As I read RFC 
3667, it is permitted under the IETF's rules to do so.

- Encourage others to do the same, and see if there is uptake.

Running code...

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:54:05 +0100

> 3667, it is permitted under the IETF's rules to do so.

Harald, thanks for concrete suggestions.

I have been doing some of the above for a while, although I have not
mentioned the rights in my I-D's.  The conditions I'm using is as
follows:

	Copyright (c) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Simon Josefsson
	Copying and distribution of the work, with or without modification,
	are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
	notice and this notice are preserved.

The text is so small, that I don't think a separate document
containing that text is necessary.

> - Encourage others to do the same, and see if there is uptake.

That is the goal of my recent public posts.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:27:42 -0500

>> - Encourage others to do the same, and see if there is uptake.

    Simon> That is the goal of my recent public posts.

So, assuming I want to do this on a document I'm editing, what do I
need to do when I'm taking suggested text from WG participants etc to
make sure I have the necessary rights  to  grant these additional permissions?

Let's say I'm editing a foo-bis document.  Is it sufficient to talk to
the people listed on the authors page of the old document and get
there permission?  I'd assume not.

--Sam

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:19:12 -0500 (EST)

there is no problem doing this within the IETF process - the issue
comes up when people outside teh process what to grab parts of 
RFCs/IDs or create modified versions

Scott

----
>From [email-masked]  Wed Dec 15 13:54:24 2004
To: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:27:42 -0500
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Copying conditions
Sender: [email-masked]

--Sam

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:25:57 -0500

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> writes:

    Scott> there is no problem doing this within the IETF process -
    Scott> the issue comes up when people outside teh process what to
    Scott> grab parts of RFCs/IDs or create modified versions

Please double check what I wrote and make sure what you said is still
true.  I'm not just talking about using text from another document in
something that only grants 3667 rights.  My question is what do I as
an editor need to do in order to grant additional rights in the
situations I described.

--Sam

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:38:16 -0500 (EST)

> true.  

just to be clear - you don't need to do anything to get permisison
from previous contributors/authors for others within the IETF process
to take parts of what you produce or for you to take parts of what 
others have publihed in IDs or RFCs (unless they had a restriction 
in the original publication)

you also don't need to do anything in the case where your source was
an RFC Editor RFC (since the RFC Editor does requires the permisison to 
take extracts etc from the authors)

but, in what I think in rereading you were talking about, I think 
you would need to get permisison from all of the old authors and  major (named)
contributors if you are updating (within the IETF process) an existing RFC
that some else wrote and wanted to include text that extended permisison 
for people outside of the IETF process to make extracts or modified evrsions
of the revised document

I expect you would also have to get permisison of all of your co-authors
and major contributors to do the same with a new (not foo-bis) work

sorry if I misread

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:10:53 +0100

> containing that text is necessary.

you realize, of course, that this copyright clause is granting one set of 
rights (reproduction of changed versions for any purpose with copyright 
notice preserved), and the publishing of the work as an I-D grants a 
non-overlapping set of rights (changed versions and derived works within 
the IETF process, no requirement for copyright notice preservation, but a 
requirement for acknowledgement of significant contributors).... so someone 
who is conscientous about IPR will have to make a note of which of the 
granted rights he has made a particular copy under, so that he knows which 
of the 2 sets of rules to follow....

IPR never ceases to come up with new ways to make my head hurt.

                   Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:31:39 +0100

> of the 2 sets of rules to follow....

Right.

Although, if the rights granted by IETF doesn't give that "someone"
the right to use the document in implementations, manuals, new
protocols, etc, there isn't much choice for that "someone".  Either
she can follow my copying conditions, or in the worst case, it may be
that she cannot use the document at all.

This is also why it would be better to modify IETF's conditions, so
that the rights my users need are included there...

Doing so would also take care of Sam's concern with tracking copyright
back to individual contributors when revising existing RFCs.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:25:57 +0100

--On torsdag, desember 16, 2004 12:31:39 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> you realize, of course, that this copyright clause is granting one set
>> of  rights (reproduction of changed versions for any purpose with
>> copyright  notice preserved), and the publishing of the work as an I-D
>> grants a  non-overlapping set of rights (changed versions and derived
>> works within  the IETF process, no requirement for copyright notice
>> preservation, but a  requirement for acknowledgement of significant
>> contributors).... so someone  who is conscientous about IPR will have to
>> make a note of which of the  granted rights he has made a particular
>> copy under, so that he knows which  of the 2 sets of rules to follow....
>
> Right.
>

actually I think one of the things you had on your list (code extraction) 
can't be done under your conditions, because it's not a "modified work", 
it's a "derived work"..... but IANAL, so for all I know, "derived" works 
are a subclass of "modified" works, and this is a red herring.....

> that the rights my users need are included there...

The reason I'm being somewhat anal about implications of other people's 
copyright statements, and want to have "running code" for at least some 
examples before changing the generic IETF procedure, is that the overhead 
of changing IPR rules in the IETF is (as you all know by now) VERY high.... 
I'd like to have a specific place that we have a clear picture of ready 
before we make the next jump...

                    Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:41:59 +0100

>>>> 	notice and this notice are preserved.
...
> are a subclass of "modified" works, and this is a red herring.....

My limited knowledge of the English language suggest to me that, in
this case, a "derived work" would indeed be a subset of "modified
work".  That is because I can modify text in a specification until it
is source code, or any other form that would be regarded as derived
from the original.  If lawyers disagree with that view, I suppose
clarifying matters wouldn't hurt, as long as the new text is possible
to understand by people without legal training.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:00:40 -0800

It hath been written:
> work".

It is the other way around. Under US copyright law, a "modification" is one
example of a "derivative work." So a derivative work is:

   "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a 
   translation,... abridgment, condensation, or any other form 
   in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
   consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,
   or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original
   work of authorship, is a “derivative work”." 17 U.S.C. §101.

Because the law says "such as..." you can assume there are many ways to
create a "derivative work." Modification is one way.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:41:41 +0100

"Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]> writes:

>    work of authorship, is a `derivative work'." 17 U.S.C. §101.
>

So what is the definition of "modification"?

The fact that "derivative work" contain the sub-set "modifications",
which you argue convincingly for, does not necessarily mean that
"modification" cannot have "derivative work" as a sub-set.  The terms
may be equivalent ways of expressing the same thing.

If the term "derivative work" is used, I believe it should also be
clarified that the original work may be used verbatim, i.e., it should
be permitted to use the work without recasting, transforming, or
adapting it.  I.e., without creating a derivative work.  If you only
give permission to produce derivative work, it seems to me that you
forget about the rights for the original text.

Assuming "modification" does not include "derivative works" (which I
currently challenge), how would the revised text look like?

	Copyright (c) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Simon Josefsson
	Copying and distribution of the work itself, with or without
	modification, or a derivative of the work, are permitted in
	any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and
	this notice are preserved.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:18:37 -0800

Simon,

Since "derivative works" includes "modifications" (17 U.S.C. §101), here is
precisely how I would word it if I were giving away my own intellectual
property to accomplish those objectives:

> 	Copyright (c) 2000-2004 Simon Josefsson
>     Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1

I would not use your wording at all. The AFL 2.1 accomplishes much the same
thing in a much more professional way. It affirms your copyright notice and
it grants everyone a royalty-free license to copy, modify and distribute
your work. It also protects you from lawsuits. It also handles patent rights
in a reasonable way. It also is an approved open source license compatible
with many other licenses and with proprietary licenses. You don't need to
paraphrase that with your own notice.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:03:11 +0100

> paraphrase that with your own notice.

I think there are several problems with your license.  According to
the Free Software Foundation, the AFL is incompatible with the Generic
Public License.  So for me, who license software under the GPL, AFL
appear to have similar problems as the current RFC copying conditions.

Another problems with the AFL, that may be relevant to the IETF, are
the patent license grant.  I'm only speaking for myself, but I'm not
certain all IETF participants would feel comfortable with the grant of
patent licenses that is part of AFL.  Similar arguments could be made
on the text regarding trademarks.

While software patents can be troublesome, I have formed the opinion
that it would be sub-optimal to conflate the RFC copying conditions
with the patent, trademark and other issues.  The patent issue is
important, but if there is any hope of making progress, separating the
issues and concentrating on what can realistically be achieved, sounds
preferable to me.

I haven't yet seen anything that has made me change my preference for
the small copying conditions I quoted initially.

Thanks,
Simon

PS. If others are interested in reading the AFL license, it is
available from <http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php>.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:26:15 -0500 (EST)

> with the patent, trademark and other issues.

thank you !

Scott

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:08:37 -0800

Once again Harald - the real issue is submission and sign off - how do you
know the person submitting the work has the rights to do so? Answer -  YOU
DONT... and they may not. In fact legally speaking (unless Jorge wants to
say this isn't true), under Copyright's Work For Hire doctrine the
submitters would in most instances not own the IP they were submitting.

So if they dont own the IP and you already know this is true - then ANYTHING
that the IETF publishes is an invitation to a lawsuit and that is what this
is supposed to cure eh?

Todd