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

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:27:53 -0500

Simon,

RFC 2026 had a number of omissions, inconsistencies and inadequacies that were
discussed at great length during the process that led to BCP 78.  The new
language exists and it is an improvement.  Going back to the language of
2026 would, in my view, be a mistake.

I don't understand the issue that you're raising re. "perpetual".  That
term is plainly included in the license grant under Section 3.3.a of
BCP 78.  

I'll try to address the rest of the recent discussion threads soon.

Regards,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Simon Josefsson
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:24 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Comment on section 2.3 of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

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

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

> 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
>
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> 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
>> 

_______________________________________________
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, 07 Nov 2005 17:33:55 +0100

> 2026 would, in my view, be a mistake.

I though the intention of the text would be the same as in RFC 2026.
This doesn't appear to be the case here.  I am happy with new text if
the meaning is the same as the old.

> term is plainly included in the license grant under Section 3.3.a of

Please re-read my message, I am commenting on the boiler plate that
would be put into RFCs that permit reprinting to third parties.  The
word perpetual is not used there.  Section 3.3.a isn't applicable
here.

> I'll try to address the rest of the recent discussion threads soon.

Please do.

I believe it would be better to grant the reprint right to third
parties in 3.3 rather than changing the boiler plate, which is what
Scott's draft attempt to do now.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:22:56 -0800

I think this exchange again underscores the need to be clear about what our 
goals are .... a WG meeting (or a heated mailing list debate) is a 
reasonable place to get an idea of what it is that people want to 
accomplish - the goals and prinicples of the effort.

However, crafting legal language that accomplishes the same thing is a job 
requiring lawyers, care and time.

I think we should focus the WG meeting on getting consensus on the stuff we 
want to accomplish.

                      Harald, speaking as participant

--On 7. november 2005 17:33 +0100 Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> RFC 2026 had a number of omissions, inconsistencies and inadequacies
>> that were discussed at great length during the process that led to BCP
>> 78.  The new language exists and it is an improvement.  Going back to
>> the language of 2026 would, in my view, be a mistake.
>