Subject: A different IPR model

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:03:23 -0500

Hi.

Simon and I tend to be on opposite sides of these issues, since 
he seems to be trying to protect the "rights" or implementors 
and developers and their documentation efforts, while I'm pretty 
sensitive to the needs of authors.   But, more than that, I'm 
concerned that the process of continual rule-diddling, fussing 
about what we really mean, and worrying about how to correct 
last year's mistakes is wasting tremendous energy that ought to 
be going into engineering and standards work.

So I'd like to propose, reluctantly, that we consider a radical 
change to the IETF's IPR model.

Sam made the observation last night that many of my postings are 
really mini-documents and that people have trouble dealing with 
them as email.   In the hope of helping with that pattern, there 
is an explicit mini-document attached.  If there is traction for 
it, I'll generate an I-D.

The summary, for those who don't want to read a lot of text, is 
that I'm proposing that authors explicitly transfer copyright to 
the IETF, reserving some rights to themselves but putting the 
IETF into a clear position to grant whatever licenses are needed 
to deal with specific circumstances.

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:40:29 -0800

On 11/09/2005 10:03 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> The summary, for those who don't want to read a lot of text, is that I'm
> proposing that authors explicitly transfer copyright to the IETF,
> reserving some rights to themselves but putting the IETF into a clear
> position to grant whatever licenses are needed to deal with specific
> circumstances.
> 
>  john

John, speaking personally, that seems to go against everything else we
are doing these days.  Think about the process changes we have been
going through.  In every case the IETF participants wanted to know
exactly what rights were being given where, and wanted to give only
those rights that were necessary.  Why would we insist that authors
give the *IETF* more rights than the IETF wants to give even to
internal bodies?  If the IETF cannot say specifically what they need
rights for, it doesn't make sense to me to ask for them.  I can
understand that you are disturbed that we never seem to get it right,
but that's our failing.  One solution would be to ask for everything
possible, but that feels very sloppy compared to trying harder to get
it right at least one more time.

Scott

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:34:10 +0100

John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:

> IV.  Outline of Proposal -- Proposed Principles
>
> (1) Before a document is published as an RFC, the author
> executes an explicit transfer of copyright to the IETF (again,
> ignoring, at this level, who/what that actually means, but
> presumably the IETF Trust under the new regime).
>
> (2) That transfer reserves to the author, and anyone else the
> author explicitly designates, rights to distribute, reuse,
> excerpt, compile, and generally use the document for any
> purpose of the author's as long as those uses don't interfere
> with IETF use.
>
> (3) With the exception of the reservations in (2), the document
> belongs to the IETF.  The IETF can license its use or actions
> with regard to it, as needed and appropriate (see below).
>
> (4) At the point an I-D is started down a path that is likely
> to lead to RFC publication, the author(s) must obligate him,
> her, or themselves to execute that copyright transfer.
>
> (5) Whomever holds the copyright and is responsible for
> licensing is obligated to follow IETF instructions and guidance
> on principles for licensing.
>
> (6) Those principles include at least unlimited distribution
> and redistribution, any use necessary to the IETF standards
> process (including handoffs by the IETF to other bodies), and
> so on.   It also includes any uses consistent with a GPL style,
> i.e., that derivations and modifications are permitted as long
> as they are clear as to what they are and the IETF has full
> access to the results.  Any other use requires explicit action
> by the IETF IPR management body, whether to permit/license
> general uses or to make case-by-case provisions.
>
> (7) Except for giving general guidance to the IPR management
> body, and potentially via the usual review/appeal mechanism,
> the IETF as a standards body gets out of the IPR-rule-fussing
> business.

Wow.  There are many things here that I would support.  I'd really
like to see this documented in a draft.  I must admit that I find your
proposal somewhat radical, so I have doubts whether it can be
implemented, but I would certainly like to see who would oppose your
proposal and also why the would oppose it.  I believe going through
that exercise would be worthwhile and illuminating.

Thanks,
Simon