Subject: RE: One copyright issue or Two?

From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:19:49 -0600

Todd,

Good question, and I certainly cannot answer why some feel this needs to
be possible.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:11 PM
> To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20; Simon Josefsson
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: One copyright issue or Two?
> 
> 
> Chuck and Simon -
> I want to ask a sort of important question and that is "why 
> does the IETF have to allow anyone republishing the RFC's to 
> put their mark on them?" - I mean,  what is the point? the 
> old RFC2026 license and the updated ones to a large extent 
> says that the documents can be reproduced as long as they 
> maintain their copyright acknowledgment/branding... So then 
> why does an OpenSource vendor need to place an OpenSource 
> license on the IETF's work product? So it can own the mark? 
> But it doesn't own the IP its republishing, and that is the 
> key. Unless the IETF's licensing models want to take into 
> account any other licensing systems and interoperating with 
> them, they are legally irrelevant to how the IETF's contract 
> between the submitter and the standards process work flow works.
> 
> That is something I have wanted to ask - since the IP itself 
> doesn't belong to the OpenSource Vendor at all anyway... I 
> understand the issue about derivative rights for those that 
> are doing work on developing product, but not simple republishing...
> 
> Remember there are three uses
> ----------------------------------
> 1)    reference only republication rights
> 
> 2)    derivative documentation rights
> 
> 3)    derivative product rights
> 
> So if Debian or whoever is not turning the RFC's into a 
> product but rather publishing them as part of its document 
> set, then #1 works for it. Likewise its customer's republish 
> the same docs or ship them on DVD or CD and there is no 
> issue.  If they wanted to modify the IP in the RFC's or use 
> pieces of RFC's they would need the #2 rights at the least 
> and possibly the #3 rights as well.
> 
> Todd
> 
> 

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:59:54 -0800

Chuck - I was wondering what the intent was since the net effect is in
literally giving the IP away.

As an alternative, why dont we just create a "republishing license" for
those that want to include the documents in their entirety in libraries or
knowledge bases. This would be a really simple license to write and would be
no pain at all. We then have Jorge contact the OpenSource liaisons and
inform them that rather than lose control of our own IP, we (the IETF) need
to participate with their initiatives in the form of a unrestricted right to
republish RFC's in their entirety or other selected documents (including
BCP's) in their entirety. They must maintain the IETF copyright at all
times.

This same license addresses the commercial reprinting of the document in
whole.

There would be two more rights to define and to address the management of,
the first being the people what want to either print pieces of a RFC or make
extractions from it for other reprinting or development work. The second to
be those productization rights for derivatives and other proprietary works.
Neither of these two uses is addressed by the simple republishing rights and
this is where the INTENT of the SUBMITTER starts to become important with
how US law treats GIFT'S or DONATIONS. This is a more important concept than
people give it credit, since it is law and organizational process and
structure, and not network protocol that we are having to address. That
said, and since everyone that submitted anything to the IETF intended it for
formal publication to get it into 'fair game' status for a WG's Vetting
Efforts, that was the intent of the 'donation' of the publication rights.
There is a legitimate question as to what of what has been published the
IETF actually does have rights to.

[As a side note, I think that no enduring IP rights beyond publication have
been granted on anything to date too]

---

BTW - If I were ISOC I would spin the IETF/IRTF/IESG/IAB off as a separate
Network Protocol's Standards corporation so fast it would make people's
heads spin. I would also force the IETF management to come up with a way to
manage itself too. Financially - is what I am referring to... because the
have too many conflict's of interest already between them and the IETF that
if the IETF were to be hammered in Court they would fall like the next
domino in the row IMHO.

As to the Trust - unless the ITU wants to bless it and the UN proclaims it
the 'cats meow', I think its a bad idea to put anything in the hands of the
people that have failed up till this date to protect the IP's entrusted to
them, with the awesome and arduous task of actually making money from what
they are sitting on. This may sound like a contradiction to what I said
above but I assure you there are commercial interests and efforts that the
IETF can do without compromising itself ethically or any of the participants
either which is more important in the bigger picture possibly eh?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Simon Josefsson"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: One copyright issue or Two?

Todd,

Chuck