Subject: Proposed charter update

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:24:10 +0100

Saddened that there were no discussion on outbound rights principle
last night -- the discussion was about inbound rights, for which there
were apparently little or no disagreement at all, making the meeting
seem like a waste of face-of-face time to me, since my presentation
was intended as a starting point for an open mic session -- I'd like
to propose one mechanism to make sure this WG address the outbound
rights issue.

The first step to make sure the WG address this issue is to update the
charter.  It is not clear that the current charter cover this work.
The current charter require the WG to update the charter when new
issues are identified.  I believe my work is a continuation of the
2026 policy, but there seem to be disagreement on that.  Updating the
charter thus seem the right thing to do.  There certainly seem to be
enough interest in working on this matter, and we have one draft on
this matter already (mine).

Read the current charter before considering my proposed text below, it
is available from:
   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html

Charter update strawman:

   While clarifying the existing practices, the issue of which rights
   the IETF should be granted to third parties were identified.  The
   WG charter is amended with the following task: to establish
   consensus of which rights the IETF should grant to third parties,
   and to update the license text.  One input to this process will be
   draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update, but different approaches will be
   solicited.

I welcome discussion on whether this is a reasonable way forward.

Thanks,
Simon

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:15:43 +0100

(AD hat on)

Simon,

The WG Chair and I certainly need to discuss the way forward
and a charter update may well be needed, although I'm not
yet convinced we are really talking about a change in the
IETF's *intended* policy.

Also, although we had half the time needed in the session,
I think your trip was worthwhile. We got the issue on the
table and we know it can't be ducked.

     Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:16:44 +0100

Is there any progress on this?

I believe we should make progress with a charter update to make it
clear to others that we are working on the outbound copying conditions
for IETF documents.

Since this WG appear to have no remaining tasks if this work is not
adopted, the WG appear likely to be closed soon.  I want to find out
whether I should start looking at raising support for a BOF on
outbound copying conditions at the next IETF, or whether this issue
will be address by this WG.

As a reminder, RFC 2026 granted several outbound copying rights that
were reverted by RFC 3978.  I think this WG should at least correct
that mistake, but when doing so, I believe it is useful to have a real
discussion about what the IETF actually intended with RFC 2026.

The legal foundation of several free software projects that
incorporate portions of RFCs depend on one interpretation of RFC 2026,
one that is not disputed by the RFC 2026 author.  Clarifying which
interpretation is correct is important.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:10:50 +0100

> one that is not disputed by the RFC 2026 author.  Clarifying which
              ---
> interpretation is correct is important.

Sorry, remove that negation.  The interpretation of RFC 2026 that free
software would appear to need to invoke, to be able adapt portions of
RFCs, _is_ disputed by the RFC 2026 author.