Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:07:17 -0400 (EDT)

a number of post ask where in RFC 3978 the right for 3rd parties 
to reproduce RFCs is noted

it does look like some of the clarity of that right got lost
in the effort to reduce the copyright notice that needed to be
carried on all RFCs but the rights to let RFCs be "freely reproduced"
(and translated) and for MIBs to be extracted are specifically noted 
in section 7.1 

note that the removal of the "distribution of this memo is
unlimited" notice on RFCs was not discussed or directed by the process
that produced RFC 3978 (as far as I can recall) - and I do not know
why its no longer being used  - (the RFC Editor may quickly refresh my
memory :-) )

in case anyone wonders, RFC 3978 was not intended to remove any
rights for 3rd parties relating to IETF RFCs - instead it was
intended to make some of the rights (extracting MIBs for example)
even clearer - this discussion indicates that the desired level of clarity 
was not realized in some cases.

teh new ID is intended to add additional rights for everyone (inside or
outside of the standards process) to extract text other than "logical
parts" like MIBs - it is also intended to give the IETF the ability to
grant 3rd parties the right to make derivative works outside of
teh IETF standards process - note that, if the latter right is
established, at some point in the future the IETF could decide that
"open source standards" are a fine idea and set up some mechanism
to enable them - thus the suggestion was made (by Sam as I recall) at
the last IPR meeting to at least get those rights in hand without
having to resolve the open source standards issue first. - I suppose
that the text in the ID could be changed to permit the IETF to set up
a process other than case-by-case for granting the derivative works
right - opinions?

7.1.  Rights Granted in IETF Contributions
   
   The IETF/ISOC must obtain the right to publish an IETF Contribution
   as an RFC or an Internet-Draft from the Contributors.

   A primary objective of this policy is to obtain from the document
   authors only the non-exclusive rights that are needed to develop and
   publish IETF Documents and to use the IETF Contributions in the IETF
   Standards Process while leaving all other rights with the authors.

   The non-exclusive rights that the IETF needs are:

   a. the right to publish the document
   b. the right to let the document be freely reproduced in the formats
      that the IETF publishes it in
   c. the right to let third parties translate it into languages other
      than English
   d. except where explicitly excluded (see Section 5.2), the right to
      make derivative works within the IETF process.
   e. the right to let third parties extract some logical parts, for
      example MIB modules

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

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT)

> (and translated) and for MIBs to be extracted are specifically noted

Thank you.

> why its no longer being used  - (the RFC Editor may quickly refresh my

It appears that I didn't communicate very clearly ... in fact the
words "distribution of this memo is unlimited" are still being put
on the front page of RFCs by the RFC Editor.

//cmh

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:00:04 +0200

> (and translated) and for MIBs to be extracted are specifically noted 

You fail to quote the title of section 7:

7.  Exposition of Why These Procedures Are the Way They Are

>    e. the right to let third parties extract some logical parts, for

I read this to mean that 7.1 is not part of the license agreement.

Section 7 is just background information explaining why things are
they way they are.  It is unfortunate that the text do not reflect how
things really are, i.e., the license terms in section 3.3 and 4.2.

I take your e-mail as confirmation that you could not find any grant
of rights (i.e., in section 3 or 4) that give anyone (except the
IETF/ISOC) the right to copy or distribute RFCs, let alone make
modifications.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:39:16 -0700 (PDT)

> 7.  Exposition of Why These Procedures Are the Way They Are
[ ... ]
> IETF/ISOC) the right to copy or distribute RFCs, let alone make

I agree that there is a distinct lack of clarity, since I too was
misled by the title of Section 7 and did not look there to see what
one is actually allowed to do with RFCs.  And I would agree with you
that this lack of clarity should be fixed.

However, unlike you, I see no reason not to accept the document
editor's word that Section 7 gives me the right to copy RFCs and to
extract MIB modules or executable code.  These things were common
practice when the WG that produced 3978 was chartered, and the the
clear intent of the WG (clear, at least, after reviewing the mailing
list archives) was to leave those practices (the "running code" as
it were) unchanged.  Note that every RFC still has the words
"distribution of this memo is unlimited" on the front page (as has
been the case for every RFC since RFC 1000 or so).

//cmh

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:00:29 +0200

> that this lack of clarity should be fixed.

Agreed.

> been the case for every RFC since RFC 1000 or so).

Here we disagree.  So I believe updating the document to provide
clarity on this point would be useful.

When deciding the copying permission I am granted, I believe I should
not have to read through anything but the copying permission.  If the
copying permission is not saying the same thing that was intended, or
what the IETF tradition is, or what the WG intended to say, that is a
problem with the copying permission that should be fixed.

If I start to assume that I have rights to RFCs that are not expressed
in the copying permission, logic dictate that I might as well assume
anything.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 07:32:51 -0700 (PDT)

> problem with the copying permission that should be fixed.

We certainly agree on that point.

> in the copying permission, logic dictate that I might as well assume

Relying on the public statements of the document editor and on the
publically archived deliberations of the WG is not the same thing at
all as making an arbitrary assumption.  The premise of the statement
in the paragraph above is wrong, so its conclusion does not follow.

//cmh

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:06:04 +0200

> in the paragraph above is wrong, so its conclusion does not follow.

Public statements and archived deliberations are of questionable legal
value compared to what the actual copying permissions says.  But I
agree, it appears as if it was the intention to grant some of the
rights that I need.  Fixing BCP78 to say what people thought it should
say would thus be the first step in meeting my needs.

Cheers,
Simon