Subject: Comment on section 2.3 of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:26:00 +0100

Hi all.

The new text in section 2.3 of -01 is a good attempt to address the
reprint right, although when comparing it to the RFC 2026 text, I note
that one aspect in 2026:

         The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
         not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
         assigns.

is not reflected in the new text.  How about changing:

   (F) to permit third parties to copy, publish, display and
       distribute the Contribution without modification (except for
       translation into languages other than English) as part of a
       full, unmodified RFC (which may be translated into the same
       language as such Contribution), for any purpose, whether or not
       within the IETF Standards Process.
...
   Permission is granted to translate this document or portions of
   this document into languages other than English. Permission is also
   hereby granted to copy, publish, display and distribute this
   document or portions of this document, or their translations,
   without additional modification.

into (my modifications underlined):

   (F) to grant third parties the perpetual right to copy, publish,
          ---------------------------------
       display and distribute the Contribution without modification
       (except for translation into languages other than English) as
       part of a full, unmodified RFC (which may be translated into
       the same language as such Contribution), for any purpose,
       whether or not within the IETF Standards Process.
...
   Permission is granted to translate this document or portions of
   this document into languages other than English. Permission is also
   hereby granted to copy, publish, display and distribute this
   document or portions of this document, or their translations,
   without additional modification.  These permissions are perpetual
                                     -------------------------------
   and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors
   -----------------------------------------------------------------
   or assigns.
   -----------

Of course, I believe we should grant more rights to third parties, but
my proposal deal with that.  I am trying to improve Scott's document
here, so we won't have to spend time on this relatively minor issue at
the meeting.

Thanks,
Simon

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:12:23 +0100

Another question to Jorge: does the "perpetual" language actually
add anything, or is it the default legal interpretation.

In other words, is there any legal difference between
"I give you this dollar" and "I give you this dollar perpetually"?

    Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:23:57 +0100

I think we should preserve the RFC 2026 text as much as possible.  If
RFC 2026 used that wording, we don't need a motivation to keep it.  We
would need a motivation to drop it, and I haven't seen one.  Lacking
legal meaning is not a reason, I should be able to read the document
as non-lawyer, and I find that this sentence add value.

I don't follow your example.  Granting rights is not the same as
giving a dollar.  It is possible to grant non-perpetual rights, but,
as far as I know, it is not possible to give a dollar that will cease
to work after a while.

Thanks,
Simon