Subject: RE: draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-00

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:03:40 -0400

>That does not grant me the right to make trivial modifications to
>Contributions, as far as I can see.

>The text grants the ISOC/IETF the right to grant sub-licenses (that
>permit modifications) to third parties.

>That is definitely not the same thing, as I understand that these
>sub-licenses will not be granted without hassle.

Simon -- You are right about the differences.  Now, at least, we are
all on the same page regarding our understanding of the
current rules and the proposed revisions/clarifications.

The question boils down to whether or not a license to make
derivatives (other than translations)
will be granted automatically, or whether it will
require IETF/IESG approval.  Is this a fair statement
of the delta between the two positions?

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:53 PM
To: Contreras, Jorge
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Scott Bradner
Subject: Re: draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-00

"Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]> writes:

>>In my manuals and source code, I am excerpting from RFCs.  The size of
>>the material I borrow is more than what is permitted by copyright law.
>>So I need a license to be able to use that material.  Even trivial
>>modifications, like removing page breaks, is not permitted in RFC
>>3978, from what I can tell.
>
> You are right, but Section 2.1 of Scott Bradner's I-D allows that.
> Is there a need for more?

The combined license you refer to would read:

   a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
      protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
      Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
      he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
      perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
      right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
      property rights in the Contribution:
...
 (E)  to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute and incorporate
      into other works, for any purpose (and not limited to use within
      the IETF Standards Process), and to grant third parties
      sublicenses to do the same, any portion of the Contribution
      without modification (other than non-substantive modifications
      such as translation into languages other than English or
      compilation of source code statements into executable code), and
      further provided that the notices required by Sections 5.4 or 5.6
      below, as applicable, are included

That does not grant me the right to make trivial modifications to
Contributions, as far as I can see.

The text grants the ISOC/IETF the right to grant sub-licenses (that
permit modifications) to third parties.

That is definitely not the same thing, as I understand that these
sub-licenses will not be granted without hassle.

Thanks,
Simon

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:26:44 +0200

> of the delta between the two positions?

Exactly.  That is one aspect.

We have established that RFC 2026 permit derivative works, under some
conditions ("comment on", "assist in its implementation"...).  RFC
3978 (including its updates) should not alter that status-quo, at
least not without a WG chart update.

Another aspect is that the wording in RFC 2026 is unclear.  In my
draft, I have tried to re-word my interpretation of what was permitted
by RFC 2026 within the context of RFC 3978.  I do not think the
reservations about "comment on" or "assist in its implementation" were
critical to what kind of derivative works that RFC 2026 permitted.

If there is WG consensus that the "comment on" or "assist in its
implementation" phrases have some exact meaning, I believe that
meaning should be clarified.  Then document end-users like myself
would be able to know exactly what is permitted and what is not.

Currently some (i.e., Scott Bradner) argue that RFC 2026 did not give
anyone the right to modify derivative works, whereas others (including
myself) argue that all useful derivative works were permitted (through
"comment on").  I would like to help close that interpretation gap.

Thanks,
Simon