Subject: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:22:44 +0100

I think this has gone on long enough.

This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and I'll 
close it on February 28.

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF documents 
(such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to produce derivative 
works based on those pieces.

Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces do 
not need the right to produce such derivative works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that corresponds to the advice of counsel, and to the opinion of 
the vast majority of this working group.

Note that this has absolutely no effect on the need to have rights to 
practice applicable patents; this is strictly about copyright.

I know that Todd Glassey does not agree with this statement. Other people 
who do not agree with this statement are hereby encouraged to speak up; 
references to specific case law (in any jurisdiction) that is clearly 
contrary to this opinion will be appreciated.

                 Harald Alvestrand, co-chair of IPR WG

I think this has gone on long enough.

This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and I'll 
close it on February 28.

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF documents 
(such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to produce derivative 
works based on those pieces.

Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces do 
not need the right to produce such derivative works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that corresponds to the advice of counsel, and to the opinion of 
the vast majority of this working group.

Note that this has absolutely no effect on the need to have rights to 
practice applicable patents; this is strictly about copyright.

I know that Todd Glassey does not agree with this statement. Other people 
who do not agree with this statement are hereby encouraged to speak up; 
references to specific case law (in any jurisdiction) that is clearly 
contrary to this opinion will be appreciated.

                 Harald Alvestrand, co-chair of IPR WG

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:57:07 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and
> I'll close it on February 28.
>
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
> produce derivative works based on those pieces.

FWIW, I agree with this solution.

I note that some may consider 'text' to be something that you would
have to incorporate in an implementation in order to implement it.  My
point is that in the above, it may have been implied that only 'code'
is applicable for this rule.  I'm not sure if this was intentional.

Regards,
Simon

> Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces
> do not need the right to produce such derivative works.
> I believe that corresponds to the advice of counsel, and to the
> opinion of the vast majority of this working group.
>
> I know that Todd Glassey does not agree with this statement. Other
> people who do not agree with this statement are hereby encouraged to
> speak up; references to specific case law (in any jurisdiction) that
> is clearly contrary to this opinion will be appreciated.
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:07:16 +0100

--On onsdag, februar 22, 2006 15:57:07 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> arald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
>

It was very much intentional that I wrote "pieces" and not "code" - that 
allows us to close this issue without having to solve the "what is code" 
issue first....

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:13:14 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> It was very much intentional that I wrote "pieces" and not "code" -
> that allows us to close this issue without having to solve the "what
> is code" issue first....

Ok.

I suggest to add that the derivative works should be possible to
release under licenses which are frequently used for IETF standards.
For example:

 Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
 documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
 produce derivative works based on those pieces, and those rights
 need to be compatible with a wide range of licenses commonly
 used by implementers.

Without this modification, it is possible design a IETF policy that
satisfy the above resolution text but still fail my intended point
here: that free implementations may need to incorporate parts of a
standard, and to release the work under a license that permits
modifications.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:45:10 -0800

Q: - what do you think of this proposal?

How about if we sidestep the "mechanical Derivative Rights process" entirely
and make those individuals inside the Standards Process address this and
file releases when they are ready for the IETF WG Chairs and AD's to review
the work for advancement???

Lets say that if it's a Standards Practice submission,  then it will need to
have this Mechanical Implementation Release issue addressed prior to the
first consideration of the first port. All this requires is that the
copyright notice constrain that it pertains to publication rights only and
nothing else, and "that all mechanical rights beyond 'republication for use
in the advancement of IETF Standards process' are controlled under other
'release instruments'".

That makes this a non-issue I guess, but also means that the Standards
Process document has to be revised to map to this as well and some prototype
document for releasing the instances of "derivative rights for the Standards
Use Only" and possibly a under "derivative rights for the Standards Use or
Commercial Use" as well...

Its a real simple process tweak and makes there no more real overhead for
the IETF except that the WG Chair is then culpable to make sure that the
paperwork is in order on any and all initiatives they Shepard through the
Standards Process.

Todd

---

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:39:26 -0800

> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:

[...]

> Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such
> pieces do not need the right to produce such derivative works.

This appears to be a tautology. That is, works that do not incorporate
pieces are not derivative works, and therefore don't need any
permision.

Alternatively, the resolution is attempting to limit the extractable
part of IETF standards to specific portions of the standard to be
determined later, and forestall any further discussion on allowing the
larger portions of the work to be used as a derivative work.

If the latter is the case, I suggest removing it from the resolution,
as it's not clear that we've come to a consensus on that point;[1] if
the former is the case, I suggest removing it from the resolution, as
it is essentially a no-op.

Don Armstrong

1: I don't mean to reraise this point either, until we've dealt with
derived works of extracts of IETF standards, as this point is clearly
more contentious.
-- 
I'd never hurt another living thing.
But if I did...
It would be you.
 -- Chris Bishop  http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:47:05 -0800

At 4:13 PM +0100 2/22/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Harald wrote:

I strongly prefer Harald's formulation.  It says what the implementations
need and commits us to making sure that the IETF delivers it.

Simon's reformulation shifts from what the implementations need
to what their licenses need.  That is at least a different issue, and it
should be tracked and resolved separately.

>standard, and to release the work under a license that permits

Please, Simon, recognize that  you have two intended points:

1)implementations may need to incorporate parts of a standard

2) some implementors have chosen licensing terms that permit
modifications or mandate that successor code be licensed such
that modifications are permitted.

Harald has suggested we separate this and resolve the first issue,
around which there seems to be little controversy.  That doesn't
mean that the second won't be tackled, but it means that we
get the item for which there is consensus nailed down now.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:31:02 +0100

>>>>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
...
> Simon's reformulation shifts from what the implementations need to
> what their licenses need.  That is at least a different issue, and it

That sounds like a good idea.

> that modifications are permitted.

Yes, agreed.

> get the item for which there is consensus nailed down now.

As I've said, I'm fine with Harald's proposed solution.

What I'm worried about here is that we solve 1) with text that imply
certain restrictions for 2), in particular it imply a code vs text
split, and also the possibility of a policy that is unusable by free
implementations.

This thread (and some off-list discussion) has probably removed my
concerns over that though.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:20:45 +0100

> split, and also the possibility of a policy that is unusable by free

Yes, that's issues 1169, 1175 and 1199, which are definitely still open.

> concerns over that though.

Good!

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:49:48 +0100

> pieces are not derivative works, and therefore don't need any

I think it's a tautology, but Todd Glassey seems to think that it is not. 
The Last Call is intended to verify that the WG is OK with considering it 
to be a fact (whether it's a tautology or not is not something we need to 
decide, I think).

> it is essentially a no-op.

That's a different issue, as I commented to Simon, and one which I'm 
painfully aware that we haven't got a resolution on.

                   Harald

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:08:55 -0500

Thanks Ted. You just saving me a lot of typing.

I agree completely with Ted's comments, and support Harald's
formulation.

David Harrington
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:47 PM
> To: Simon Josefsson; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: [email-masked]