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

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:59:27 -0400

The legend in RFC 2026 permitted only certain types of
derivative works of an IETF document to be made: those that "comment on 
or otherwise explain it or assist in its 
implementation".  Frankly, some of these would generally
not even qualify as derivative works.  You don't need a
license to comment on something or to explain it, unless you are 
excerpting from it.  Even so, other types of derivative works,
such as a full knock-off
of a document with 2 bytes reversed, would certainly
not have been permitted under this language.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Simon Josefsson
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:17 PM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-00

[email-masked] (Scott Bradner) writes:

>> I believe it is.
>
> then we disagree 
>
> as the editor of 2026 I can assure you that it was specifically not 
> the intention of RFC 2026 to permit the creation of derivative works (other
> than translations) outside of the IETF standards process - nor do I
> think that 2026 gives such permisison
>
> see secton 10.3.1 - the right to make derivative works is granted
> to the IETF not to third parties

That section is not part of the license.  Again, it seems to be that
explanatory text is not aligned with what the actual legal license
terms says.

The license text I quoted says that derivative works may be created,
under some conditions that the derivative works "comment on" the
protocol.

Can you explain what you believe the actual license text below refer
to, when it talks about derivative works?  If I understood how you
interpret that clause, perhaps I could understand how we differ in
interpretation.

         This document and translations of it may be copied and
         furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or
         otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be
         prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
         part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
         copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
         copies and derivative works.

Thanks,
Simon

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

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:50:31 +0200

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

> implementation".

Thanks for confirming that.

> Frankly, some of these would generally not even qualify as
> derivative works.  You don't need a license to comment on something
> or to explain it, unless you are excerpting from it.

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.

> Even so, other types of derivative works, such as a full knock-off
> of a document with 2 bytes reversed, would certainly not have been
> permitted under this language.

And doing that is not allowed under trademark and other laws too.

I don't know who added this copy-entire-document-and-change-2-bytes
meme into this discussion, but I believe it is a red herring.  That
kind of usage doesn't represent what I want to do.  Perhaps it is easy
to claim that that is what I want to do, becausing arguing against
that is easy.

Regards,
Simon

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:58:24 -0400

> to claim that that is what I want to do, becausing arguing against

the question is not what you, personally, want to do, but what others
will be able to do with the license terms you want.

						- Bill

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:22:44 +0200

> will be able to do with the license terms you want.

Understood.  But I am willing to change my proposed license terms to
prevent others from doing things that this WG do not think is
appropriate.  I don't think my needs are mutually exclusive with what
I understand is the intended permissions (i.e., basically the RFC 2026
license).

It was suggested that taking a RFC and changing two bytes should not
be permitted.  I agree with that view, and now my license do not
permit that usage.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:37:07 +0200

> be permitted.  I agree with that view, and now my license do not

I think the question is whether it's possible to write general language
that allows what we would consider fair use and prohibits what we
would consider technically damaging changes. I think that is very
hard (and at this point I'm confused about what your very latest
text is).

     Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:18:25 +0200

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:

> would consider technically damaging changes.

Yes, I agree it may be difficult.

> I think that is very hard (and at this point I'm confused about what
> your very latest text is).

I posted the last update in my message to Ted Hardie where he
suggested some changed, it reads:

   The Contributor grants third parties the right to copy and
   distribute the Contribution, with or without modification, in any
   medium, without royalty. The IETF requests that any citation or
   excerpt of unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from
   which the text is derived. If the text is modified in any way other
   than translation, any claim of endorsement by the IETF or status
   within its document series must be removed.

Thanks,
Simon