Subject: #1166 Quotations - debate summary

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:21:31 +0200

On April 25, I suggested the following resolution to this ticket:

> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF should allow 
> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all parts of published 
> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as appropriate for the 
> medium it is used in.
>
> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx 
> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>
> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch the issue of 
> modified versions at all.

This sparked a debate of 19 messages from 8 participants that used #1166 
in its subject line.
In summary:

- Spencer Dawkins thinks this is the way it should work, and the way it 
has worked
- Todd Glassey thought this would be acceptable, given some preconditions
- Simon Josefsson thought this was fine, but desired to add the right to 
typographical modifications and corrections of factual errors 
(corrections punted to #1169), arguing that "fair use" permits 
typographical changes
- Ted Hardie agrees with punting changes to #1169, and agreeing on this 
point
- John Klensin argues that only rights to make complete copies (and 
translations) have ever been granted, that other uses require agreement 
with the authors, and that departing from this practice brings us into 
areas where we're better off transferring the copyright of documents to 
the IETF
- Brian Carpenter notes that "fair use" according to local jurisdiction 
is still permitted
- Jorge Contreras notes that "fair use" is a very limited concept in US law

At the moment, I think I (with my WG chair hat on) can claim:

- A rough (?) consensus that it would be good if the rules unambiguously 
permitted such unmodified excerpts (I'm not entirely sure if John is the 
"rough" in that consensus or not)
- A strong concern (on a par with technology groups' "technical 
objection") that we can't make rules that will give the IETF the right 
to grant this permission without causing consequences that we don't want 
to happen

Does that seem like a reasonable summary of this month's debate on this 
issue?

                             Harald

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:59:36 -0400

--On Thursday, 25 May, 2006 11:21 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF should
>> allow  anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all
>> parts of published  RFCs and Internet-drafts, with
>> attribution as appropriate for the  medium it is used in.
>> 
>> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx says", "Excerpt from
>> RFC xxxx  by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>> 
>> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch the
>> issue of  modified versions at all.
>...

> - John Klensin argues that only rights to make complete copies
> (and translations) have ever been granted, that other uses
> require agreement with the authors, and that departing from
> this practice brings us into areas where we're better off
> transferring the copyright of documents to the IETF
>...

> - A rough (?) consensus that it would be good if the rules
> unambiguously permitted such unmodified excerpts (I'm not
> entirely sure if John is the "rough" in that consensus or not)

I am in the rough part outside that consensus because, to the
degree to which I understand your next comment... 

> - A strong concern (on a par with technology groups'
> "technical objection") that we can't make rules that will give
> the IETF the right to grant this permission without causing
> consequences that we don't want to happen

I agree with it.    To the extent to which the only excerpts
permitted are unmodified, properly attributed, do not accrue
directly to the profit of those doing the excerpting (especially
not at the expense of the author or other rights-holder), are
in-context, and, in particular, are not used to support variant
or non-conforming efforts, then I would be entirely comfortable
with such a grant.   One could also drop a few of those
requirements without changing my position significantly.  But I
do not believe there is any possible meaningful way to write
such a license: too much of the evaluation of what would be
permitted lies in the eyes of the beholder.

    john

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:09:43 -0700

Harald - I agree that excerpts need to be reproducible - but we need to know
for what purposes they are being reproduced. I am not in favor of the IETF
giving away ANY more rights than are needed specifically for the Standards
Process it manages. This is important as well in securing the Trust's rights
if that is to work as well. The Trust cannot be competing with the IETF for
control of the IETF's documents already released for instance.

The idea of "Any and All uses" is identical to the idea of a "greatest
access model" in a Firewall... and as we all know, that is a very bad idea
since people clearly abuse networks and IP in the world.

The point I am trying to make is that I think we should draft a specific set
of Use Statements which meet the models of the Standards Process, and then
look at what limited set of rights are needed to make this work.

My logic is that it is not this WG's responsibility to create an Open Source
or GPL'd World from the IETF of today. In fact if the IETF were to turn
exclusively down that street I am betting it would be out of business within
a relatively short time. It is also not this WG's responsibility to make it
impossible to control the IETF's IP's and thus make it so Financially
Expensive to protect those IP's after being run through the IETF, that they
are essentially impossible to protect and as such are for lack of better
terms, treated as GPL'd by their abandonment. Those IP's become "no man's
land" per se...

It is this WG's responsibilities to come up with clear and concise
statements which are not open to random and unauthorized interpretations
regarding IP requirements of the IETF's Standards Process. That said...can
we specifically open an Action Item to define the scope of those Outgoing
Rights, so we can determine how to limit the incoming rights appropriately.

Todd Glassey