Subject: Going too far: draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-00 and draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:30:06 -0400

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion -- there are
only so many hours in the day.  However...

I've spent too much of my life trying to convince companies who
are very sensitive about their internal thinking about designs,
and IPR more generally, to participate in standards activities.
I know it is more extreme than anything you have said, but
certainly one might say that they, and their attitudes that they
can keep things proprietary, are wrongheaded and hence they
don't deserve to participate in standards activities.  However,
standards become useless if not broadly adopted, and telling a
significant number of materially-concerned organizations to kiss
off is as, or more, likely to make standards useless as it is
to, e.g., promote open source.

It is often the case that agreement can be reached for a company
to contribute to standards efforts --and to permit their staff/
employees to participate-- if the release of rights is held to
the minimum level possible consistent with getting standards
produced.   Many companies would prefer to participate in
standards efforts only if they release IPR exclusively on a
basis of "if, and only if, this is adopted as part of the
standard, then we will release it, or even guarantee to license
it --if it is not adopted, we will reclaim all rights, including
trade secret claims to the extent possible".  The IETF does not
permit that, but some standards bodies and consortia do.

Were the IETF to adopt the position that anything that it posts
as an I-D or publishes as a standard can be used, in any way,
with or without modification, and for any purpose --which is
what you appear to want-- I believe that we would see the range
of participation decrease.  I also believe that would weaken our
standards as credible interoperability specifications, perhaps
to the point of uselessness.  

We need to find a balance between maximizing participation in
the standards process and use of the standards, exactly as they
are specified and written, and other goals and ancillary
purposes.  I think your proposal is somewhat over the line.
Indeed, I suspect that the additional provisions of
draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01.txt which gives the IETF, rather
than the author, the ability to control derivative works outside
the IETF standards process goes too far.  I think that, if the
IETF is given any additional rights to authorize uses outside
its standards process, those actions need to be narrowly
constrained to be in support of the standards process.

While the example given in the I-D:

		One example of where the IETF might grant such a right
		is the case where another standards development
		organization (SDO) wants to update or extend an IETF
		technology (which would normally be done by the SDO
		sending their requirements to the IETF) but the IETF no
		longer has a working group focused on the particular
		technology and the IETF does not have the interest to
		create a new working group.

seems quite reasonable to me, that need could be captured by
language authorizing the IETF to permit derivative works to
facilitate further development of standards directly related to
IETF work.  That should be fairly clear as to intent and would
make a judgment about "directly related" appealable, if
necessary.  By contrast, authorization for any use other than
exact excerpts (or translations of them) with attribution seems
to me something that should come from the author (or not), given
our current authorship model.

An alternative model, which the IETF and its predecessors have
never used, is actually used by several other standards bodies.
That approach requires explicit release of any copyright or
other rights in anything that might go into a document so that
the documents themselves do not, formally, have authors other
than the standards bodies and all participation in creating them
is treated as a work for hire.   For a whole series of reasons,
I don't think we want to go there, but I don't want to slide
down the slippery slope in that direction either.

I also note that managing rights to derivative works that are
not directly standards-related has costs in both volunteer and
staff time.  The notion of decisions on a case-by-case basis
probably implies (the draft is not clear) IESG or IAOC (better,
but not much) time to review those cases, potentially blocking
other work.   I am not enthused about having the IETF (or IASA)
incur those costs or workflow delays.  Perhaps it would be
reasonable to _permit_ authors to voluntarily transfer the
responsibility for authorizing such derivatives to the IETF,
but, if so, I'd expect IASA to establish a fee structure for
those who request such permission: the costs should not be
passed on to the standards-producing community.

     john

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