Subject: IETf permissions distinct from permissions given to the world

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:37:29 -0500

Hi.  I won't be able to attend the IPR-WG meeting because I'll be
shepherding a BOF at the time.

One issue I brought up seems to have been overlooked in the charter
discussion.  Well, perhaps not overlooked; I'll admit that no one has
responded to my mail.  That concerns me.  I know that sometimes I
won't be part of the consensus.  I'm a bit concerned in this instance
I may not be part of the apathy.

I pointed out what I believe will be some significant problems if we
ever want to change our IPR rights granted to the world.  I suggested
that perhaps we should require sufficiently broad rights from authors
that we do not need to have huge quantities of IPR state associated
with each document.

I'd appreciate comments on this issue--either positive or negative.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:43:07 -0500 (EST)

I agree with Sam on this issue (even if I do not on others)

Scott

---
>From [email-masked]  Mon Mar  7 11:41:12 2005
To: [email-masked]
From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:37:29 -0500
Subject: IETf permissions distinct from permissions given to the world
Sender: [email-masked]

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:52:50 -0500

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 11:37:29AM -0500, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
> ever want to change our IPR rights granted to the world.  I
> suggested that perhaps we should require sufficiently broad rights
> from authors that we do not need to have huge quantities of IPR
> state associated with each document.

Sam, could you be specific?  Once upon a time there were big
discussions about what rights authors were willing to give to
IETF/ISOC, leading to the default statement (and other possible
statements).  The "copying" part of the extracts draft is repair text
to express the policy that is working code.  If you are talking about
the "modification" part, then if the IETF agrees on evolving it, it
will become policy.  What other rights do you have in mind?

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:34:34 -0500

[Here's a copy of my original message]

I see two related issues on the copyright front.  First, what rights
should the IETF require from authors.  Second, what rights should the
IETF grant to third parties.  The second must be a subset (although
perhaps not a proper subset) of the first.

I'd like to focus on the first issue for a moment.  Currently the IETF
does not have the right to grant third parties the non-exclusive right
to create derivative works.

I think this is a serious problem even if we don't decide to do
something like what Simon asks and create open-source compatible
copyrights.

Currently the procedure is fairly complicated if we find an error in
our IPR policies.  This is not a theoretical concern: we've found that
we don't give enough rights to quote RFCs in manuals and it is unclear
that we give rights to extract ASN.1 modules for people outside the
IETF process.  Regardless of whether we eventually decide these issues
are bugs, we have been reminded of our fallibility.  It seems
interesting to ask ourselves what happens if we do decide to change
the policy.

let's say that we publish RFC 4067 which expands the rights we require
from authors and changes or expands the rights we grant to third
parties.

What's the status of all the internet-drafts in the system and all the
RFCs.  Well, some of them are RFC 2026, some are RFC 3667 and some are
RFC 4067.

If I write new text it is clearly RFC 4067.

But one of the rights we have always had is the right to use previous
standards in new standards.  However we do not have the right to grant
permissions in excess of those we actually have ourselves.  RFC 3667
is careful to only reserve the minimum permissions we need.

So, I decide to update RFC 3932.  I take the old text and replace a
significant chunk of it.  I then prepare to go submit the internet
draft and am faced with boiler plate that wants me to assert that I'm
giving the IETF all the rights required by RFC 4067.

I can't do that.  I don't have those rights: I'm not the original
author of 3932.  In the case of 3932 I could probably contact the
original author and get the appropriate permissions but that is not
generally true.

One option is to decide that unless I get these permissions I cannot
make a derivative work of an RFC 3667-copyright standard.  That seems
highly undesirable.

The other option is to keep track of which rights I have.  I submit
with a boilerplate that indicates I am using both RFC 3667 and 4067
text.  It is probably desirable to list what sources of 3667 text I
have so that if those sources are later upgraded to 4067, I can
upgrade my entire document to pure 4067.

In effect I need to keep track of one bit of state (3667/4067) for
each source of significant text going into my draft.  that's painful.

Imagine if we later expand our permissions again.  That's right, two
bits per source.  My head hurts; powersets are a sign you're doing
something very wrong.

Let's fix the permissions we grant ourselves once and for all.  We
need to divorce our policies for what we allow others to do from our
policies about what rights we require.  The policies about what rights
we grant others will evolve over time.  However I think we can require
full non-exclusive permission to make derivative works and to allow
others to do the same now.  Whether we use that permission will be a
matter for BCP and endless debate.  But at least we can limit the pain
that debate will cause.

--Sam

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:15:15 -0600

Once I realized what you were saying, I thought it was blatantly obvious, 
and said so (rather loudly) in the meeting today. Sorry for not having 
responded to your mail earlier!

(it = separation of rights-to-IETF from rights-from-IETF).

               Harald