Subject: proposed new charter for IPR wg

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:31:24 -0500

Harald has asked the the IPR WG submit a new charter to the IESG.  
Here's my first draft.  Comments are hereby solicited.  There will also 
be discussion of this in Minneapolis

---
The IETF and the Internet have greatly benefited from the free exchange
of ideas and technology. For many years the IETF normal behavior was to
standardize only unencumbered technology.

While the "Tao" of the IETF is still strongly oriented toward
unencumbered technology, we can and do make use of technology that has
various encumbrances.  The IPR working group issued some RFCs that were 
intended to clarify the policy set out in RFC 2026; as with any complex 
specificaiton, it takes running code to find the flaws.  Accordingly, 
the group will seek to clarify matters even further.  

The first is the use of trademarks within RFCs.  RFCs 3667 and 3668 
state that trademarks may be acknowledged in RFCs, but never said how.

A second issue is the problem of copying or excerpting parts of RFCs, 
especially in documentation or (when appropriate) embedded in programs 
or systems.  Historically, the IETF has permitted free reproduction of 
RFCs in their entirety; extracting subsets was not permitted, except in 
the case of MIBs.  The working group will explore this question and 
propose a new copying policy.

Finally, there is the issue of so-called "defensive" patent licenses.  
We do not propose to change the IETF's historic aversion to negotiating 
patent licenses or specifying their terms, other than insisting that 
they be reasonable and non-discriminatory.  That said, it is 
appropriate to poll the community -- open source advocates, vendors, 
other patent holders, etc. -- to determine what the requirements are 
for such licenses.  No one design will fit everyone's needs; it is 
recognized that there will likely be some mutually contradictory 
requirements specified by different groups.

This working group will provide three documents:

* A BCP document specifying a policy on use of trademarks in RFCs.

* A BCP document specifying the IETF policy on copying parts of RFCs.

* An Informational document listing the community's desires for 
  terms of defensive patent licenses.

Goals and Milestones:

Aug 05  Trademark RFC

Aug 05  Copying policy RFC

Dec 05  Defensive patent license desires

		--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

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

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:50:49 -0800

]
> requirements specified by different groups.

Can you please explain in more detail why it is approppriate to poll the
community? If we would not change existing rules or specify acceptable (and
unacceptable?)  terms  of patent licenses, what is the purpose of this
"polling"?  
Also, I think what you are referring to is "defensive suspension" terms in
otherwise free licesnes, isnt that correct?

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:06:05 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, "Robert Barr" wri
>unacceptable?)  terms  of patent licenses, what is the purpose of this

I obviously worded this very poorly -- you're the fourth person to ask 
me what I meant.

There was a discussion a few months back about defense licenses -- as I 
recall, it was Cisco's IPR statement on some document that prompted it. 
There was also discussion and debate -- there were some provisions that 
some people didn't like.  What I'm after is more or less a catalogue of 
community opinions -- a structured way of summarizing that discussion.  
The idea would be to guide companies and their attorneys in drafting 
such licenses -- I assume that any requirement would be accompanied by 
some rationale.

Since this would be a collection of opinions, rather than an attempt at 
a single policy, I do expect several contradictory opinions.  I would 
expect that some people would want a section on GPL-friendly terms, 
which is certainly acceptable in a document of the type I envision.  
I'd expect other requirement statements from IPR holders, of course.

>otherwise free licesnes, isnt that correct?
I'll defer to you on terminology -- what I meant is a license of the 
form "you can use our patented technology for free if you don't sue us 
for patent infringement", possibly with all sorts of other qualifiers.

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:47:18 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Steven M. Bellovin
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: proposed new charter for IPR wg 
> 
> such licenses -- I assume that any requirement 

REQUIREMENTt? Now this is  getting interesting. But surely you don't expect
to do that w/o changing 3668, do you?

would be 
> accompanied by 
You betcha
> for patent infringement", possibly with all sorts of other qualifiers.

I suggest that the only useful purpose of this excercize, w/o changing 3668
and "requiring" specific terms (I am not necessarily opposed to that, but
that's a big can of worms and certainmly involves a change to 3668) would be
to state what kinds of "free " licenses can qualify for blanket statements
under 6.4.3 of rfc 3668

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:01:31 +0100

--On 13. februar 2005 21:47 -0800 Robert Barr <[email-masked]> wrote:

> REQUIREMENTt? Now this is  getting interesting. But surely you don't
> expect to do that w/o changing 3668, do you?

I think Steve is talking about documenting users' requirements on licensing 
in order to allow them to implement standards in their particular context.

This may vary between GPL zealots who insist that licenses be irrevocable 
and available for any purpose, free-software people who are happy as long 
as they are sure they won't have to pay anything, small developers who are 
afraid of paperwork but not afraid of paying money, or secretive companies 
who are deeply distrustful of anything that forces them to reveal what they 
are doing.

So far, I don't think anyone's seriously suggested that the IETF should 
require a particular style of license - that WOULD mean a change to RFC 
3668.

                     Harald

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:42:02 +0100

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 02:01:31PM +0100,
 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> This may vary between GPL zealots who insist 

May I suggest to avoid such name calling? Using the word "zealots" to
describe people who disagree with you is not the proper way to start a
friendly discussion. If you use "GPL zealot", I could start using
"valet of Microsoft" or "axis of evil" or any other coloured name :-)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:58:42 -0800

Harald - partner - its you that is the Zealot - "No one will ever change my
IETF..." come on. Enough.

Todd

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:05:36 -0800

Definition of zealot on the Web

partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something 
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:09:44 -0800

So, Robert, are the folks on this list who insist that there be no
substantive change to the IETF IPR policy "zealots"? 

Perhaps we should avoid name-calling altogether and focus on the issues.

/Larry

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Robert Barr
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:06 PM
> To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: proposed new charter for IPR wg
>

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:23:55 -0800

Yes. 

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:10 PM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > Of Robert Barr

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:08:43 +0100

While there are proponents of certain viewpoints who seem to delight in 
identifying themselves as "zealots", I think you're right - it's not my job 
to identify them as such.....

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:29:40 -0500

Steve, I'd like to join the crowd who does not like the wording of the
defensive patents part of the charter and suggest something I think is
an improvement.

First, can we get rid of the name defensive patent licenses?  How
about patent license requirements or implications?

Here is some proposed text.

Consumers of IETF standards have widely differing requirements on what
patent licenses are acceptable to them.  For example, some
participants may not be able to use patents unless they are freely
licensed for any purpose; others may require that they not have to
explicitly execute a license document; still others may find most
reasonable and non-discriminatory licenses acceptable if the
technology has sufficient value.  It is in the IETF's best interest
for patentholders to understand what parts of the community will be
able to use a license they are considering attaching to their patents
so they can choose a license that best balances their needs against
their desires for the technology to be widely used.  This worknig
group will poll the communities and attempt to document which
communities have what requirements on patent licenses.  The goal is to
document these requirements not take a position on which requirements
are reasonable.

--Sam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:21:02 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
> require a particular style of license - that WOULD mean a change to RFC 

And would create an enormous problem, since there is certainly no
one-size-fits-all license that every patent holder would accept.

otoh, a document setting out guidelines and a range of possible
licensing terms would be useful, I think, so the work item
seems reasonable.

    Brian (personal opinion hat on)

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:12:45 -0500

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 17:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
> patent licenses are acceptable to them.  ... It is in the IETF's best interest
> their desires for the technology to be widely used. 

Definitely. 

This working group has been focussed on legalistically defining the limits 
of what can be done with our processes, rather than on documenting the subset
of what is allowed which actually leads to rapid progress in WG's.

At the risk of going overboard with metaphors:

The range of possible behaviors by IPR holders resembles a river flowing
through a swamp.  The borders of the swamp are indistinct and 
change rapidly.  The most productive use of our time will be to
clearly document the navigable channels where work can proceed quickly. 
But the IETF culture looks unfavorably on attempts to absolutely prevent
a WG from leaving the channel and exploring the swamps.

						- Bill