Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:50:02 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: RFC 3978 Update
	Author(s)	: S. Bradner
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-02.txt
	Pages		: 5
	Date		: 2005-12-20
	
This document modifies "IETF Rights in Contributions" so that the
   IETF gets the right to permit extraction of material from RFCs, and
   the right to permit others to create derivative works outside the
   IETF process.

   It does not constrain how the IETF exercises those rights.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-02.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-02.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:00:04 +0100

> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-02.txt

That document only change the abstract, compared to the -01 version.

There are several problems that are not addressed.  I have proposed
text to solve these problems before.  If the editor is still
interested to resolve them, here are some of the issues again.

0) The material in section 3 to give the IETF the right to grant third
   parties an unrestricted right to prepare IETF documents is not in
   RFC 2026, and is actually counter to what is in 2026.  See 2026 §
   10.3.1 bullet 1.  Thus, the document changes the status-quo
   compared to RFC 2026, and this WG is not supposed to do that.  The
   charter milestones proposed by Brian does not permit to take on
   work like this either.  This could be solved by updating the WG
   charter as I proposed earlier.

1) Section 2.3 says that the rights granted to third parties are
   achieved by the RFC boilerplate text.

   If you carefully compare the rights granted in the boilerplate in
   2.3 with the license text in 2.3, you will notice that they say
   different things.  Specifically, the RFC boiler plate text says
   that you can distribute translations of portions of the RFC but the
   legal language does not permit this.

   Again, please do not put legal language in the boilerplate.  Fix
   the legal language so that it says what you mean, and do not add
   "descriptive" text that says other things.

2) The phase "case by case basis" in section 3, that I believe we
   agreed to remove in Vancouver, is still present.

3) The language in section 2.1 is not clear on whether the sub-license
   is a limited/revocable or perpetual/non-revocable license.  It has
   been suggested that by default copyright licenses are perpetual in
   the U.S, but I'm not sure whether this holds everywhere.
   Clarifying this would be useful.

I think 0) is serious and that this document cannot move forward until
that has been solved.

This was not the complete list of problems, but I don't remember more
now.  Until these issues are dismissed or fixed, I don't see much
point in going into other (more minor) issues.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:04:36 +0100

Just picking one issue, since it's a charter issue not a document issue:

> I think 0) is serious and that this document cannot move forward until

I think the WG meeting in Vancouver, and traffic on the list, indicates a 
high degree of WG consensus that the status quo needs to be changed. We 
have to work out the charter as part of the process to check that the 
entire IETF agrees about that.

I don't read the paragraph you quote the way you do, however; I don't see 
that it says anything about whether the IETF's rights are sublicenseable or 
not.

So I see 2026 suffering from a lack of clarity, not from a conflict.

                       Harald