Subject: Re: DISCUSS: Rights normally granted

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:32:36 +0100

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> can you provide a proposal for text for 5.3 that creates the
> restrictions you want?

The first  proposal was s/in any way desired//
The second proposal was s/in any way desired/worldwide/

You're probably not asking for a link to "CC BY SA", and it
wouldn't help with say RFC 4643.   Any restriction compatible
with the rest of 5.3 (and anything else in the I-D) should be
possible.  Let the lawyers figure out how to get this right.

For I-D authors it should be (in normal cases, not RFC 4643)
as simple as adding ipr="full3978" in their XML source.  

There should be some simple choices like ipr="ietfbysa" for
those who don't like "in any way desired".  The "ietfby" is
ready as far as I can judge it (= not at all, IANAL), now it
only needs a simple alternative, and probably a procedure for
tricky cases like 4643 or MD5.

Frank

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:20:05 +0100

> The second proposal was s/in any way desired/worldwide/

how do you see this as limiting the permissions granted to implementors?

I am very afraid of saying that "the IETF desires to grant the implementors 
permission to change the code, but there are limits to how we allow you to 
change it, and we're not going to tell you how the IETF desires to limit 
implementors' permission to make changes".

> tricky cases like 4643 or MD5.

This (mechanisms of specifying relevant rights granted to the IETF, or 
authors' desire wrt what the IETF should grant to implementors) is on the 
"incoming side" - later discussion. But only relevant if we agreee that we 
desire this restriction.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:40:47 +0100

> how do you see this as limiting the permissions granted

Without the "in any way desired" something like CC-BY-SA
(inbound) can be kept as is (outbound).  Probably it has
to be some IETF-BY-SA compatible with the spirit of 5.3
in the I-D, the real CC-BY-SA is apparently less liberal,
and besides it's apparently designed for music, not code.

> I am very afraid of saying that "the IETF desires to grant
> the implementors permission to change the code, but there
> are limits to how we allow you to change it, and we're not
> going to tell you how the IETF desires to limit

The IETF desires 5.3, what some authors desire in addition
to that, like some kind of "share alike", is the issue.

It's no fun to read something like RFC 4648 chapter 11, at
some point in time the link might not work anymore.

>> The "ietfby" is ready as far as I can judge it (= not at
>> all, IANAL), now it only needs a simple alternative, and
>> probably a procedure for tricky cases like 4643 or MD5.

Or 4648.

> This (mechanisms of specifying relevant rights granted to
> the IETF, or authors' desire wrt what the IETF should grant
> to implementors) is on the "incoming side" - later
> discussion. But only relevant if we agreee that we desire
> this restriction.

You can't pass something on (outbound) if you never got it
before (inbound).  For another example see RFC 4407, it's a
nice summary of a part of RFC 2822 under the somewhat odd
restriction to ignore the Return-Path.  It's less nice if
somebody would try to patent "read and understood a part of
RFC 2822" algorithms.

Authors must have the right to prevent such abuse.  I don't
care how it's done, it only has to pass a giggle test, and
ideally some of these testers are lawyers from different
countries.  That's why I proposed "worldwide" instead of
"in any way desired".

But the I-D only expresses wishes, dumping the job to find
(and update) the proper legalese on IASA.  IIRC John asked
for simple choices in the style of CC months ago.  Can do ?

Frank

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:47:51 +0100

--On 4. desember 2006 00:40 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> before (inbound).

We can always refuse to use something that comes to us, unless we are 
satistfied with the terms. We do that now with No-Derivative-Works 
documents; they can only be published for information, and cannot be part 
of a standard or a WG effort.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:17:55 +0100

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> documents; they can only be published for information, and cannot be 
> part of a standard or a WG effort.

Exactly. So we shouldn't get hung up on inbound rights beyond saying
that they must allow at least the internal and outbound rights that
we require; that can be formulated in detail later.

I still haven't seen a redraft of 5.3 in plain English.

    Brian

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:32:56 +0100

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> We can always refuse to use something that comes to us,
> unless we are satistfied with the terms.

Yes.  Those terms have to allow reasonable protections
against abuse.

> We do that now with No-Derivative-Works documents; they
> can only be published for information, and cannot be

Okay, as far as the CC-model goes that reduces the issue
to CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, anything else like ND is out.  Two
inbound variants, and two corresponding outbound variants.

Both including the entire section 5.3 minus the last four
words as is.  Here's an attempt for the missing IETF-BY-SA:

| Draft authors or editors MAY state that substantial
| modifications based on the published code have to be
| "shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso.

Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:51:17 +0100

>| "shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso,
++ or contributed to the IETF.

Just in case, let them remove it if they offer it to the
IETF.  That way "IETF-BY-SA" even has an anti-viral exit.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:56:11 -0500

I really don't like the idea of "authors may".  We need to figure out 
what we feel works for IETF RFCs.
I, for one, do not feel that IETF RFCs should ever require that folks 
who work with and modify the code should have to "share alike".  It 
has been clearly demonstrated that we need to permit modification of 
the code.  If we are going to permit modification, and we want a wide 
range of uses, we must not get into a situation where we make it 
difficult for a range of folks (corporate developers, for example) to 
actually use it.  Having dealt with corporations trying to live in 
good faith with "share alike" rules, it is a pain.

Look, I started with the view that we ought to only permit 
modifications needed to practice the standard.  After all, it is only 
interoperable implementations of the RFC that we REALLY need.  But 
Simon and others have made a series of points that have convinced me 
that we need to allow folks to do more than that.  Well, if we are 
going to allow that, then we need to allow it, not pretend to allow 
it, or allow it for only some develoeprs, or ...

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:30:25 -0800

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Okay, as far as the CC-model goes that reduces the issue to CC-BY
> and CC-BY-SA, anything else like ND is out. Two inbound variants,
> and two corresponding outbound variants.

I thought I mentioned this earlier, but I'll do so again: The various
CC licenses have additional problems, in that they (often) don't allow
DRM even in parallel distribution, and as such are often in conflict
with the GPL (not to mention proprietary products.)

While they're useful discussion points to allow the WG to think about
the nature of inbound rights that the IETF requires, they should not
be used as a standard for a minimum grant because they impose
restrictions that are not desirable.

[As a final note, there are literally a few dozen CC licenses;
discussing them really requires more than just specifying CC-BY-SA.]

Don Armstrong

-- 
Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a
large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee
 -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500)

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:20:56 +0100

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> who work with and modify the code should have to "share alike".  It has 
> been clearly demonstrated that we need to permit modification of the 
> code.  If we are going to permit modification, and we want a wide range 
> of uses, we must not get into a situation where we make it difficult for 
> a range of folks (corporate developers, for example) to actually use 
> it.  Having dealt with corporations trying to live in good faith with 
> "share alike" rules, it is a pain.

I agree, so I prefer the original formulation. But if the consensus is
for the new formulation, I would prefer:

   Drafts and RFCs MAY state that substantial
   modifications based on the published code have to be
   "shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso.

We should focus on the documents, not the contributors.

    Brian

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:35:36 +0100

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I prefer the original formulation. But if the consensus is

> We should focus on the documents, not the contributors.

Yes, that's much better.  

Frank