Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:42:01 -0400

In their April 3, 2008 meeting, the IETF Trustees discussed the
outbound-IPR document, and found no issues with the advice given in
the document. 

More specifically, the Trustees intend to invite comments
from the community, via the ietf discussion list, prior to issuing any
new licenses.  The comment period(s) will begin as soon as proposed text
for licenses have been drafted or selected. 

The Trustees will not make any final decisions on licenses stemming from 
the
outbound-IPR document until after taking the communities' feedback into 
account.

For the Trustees,
Ray Pelletier
Trustee

Ted Hardie wrote:

>>>I agree with Joel.  We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
>>>cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
>>>or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
>>>all.  Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
>>>or, even better, pointing their lawyers at the potholes others have
>>>hit would be very useful.  But this draft is not the place to do it.
>>>      
>>>
>>I believe the document is the place to do it.  This is the only document
>>were the IETF explains how the Trust should write its outgoing software
>>license for code in RFCs.  Useful considerations for that process should
>>go into the document.
>>
>>My proposed text does not suggest specific licenses.  That is a
>>misunderstanding.
>>    
>>
>
>Simon,
>	The list of potentially useful considerations in this arena is both long
>and ever-changing.  Imagine, for a moment, that I suggested that the Trust
>survey the legal departments of every organization which had sponsored
>a nomcom-eligible participant in the IETF over the past 3 years asking, if the proposed
>license was usable by their organization.  In some lights, this is a pretty reasonable
>suggestion.   These are organizations with a demonstrated interest in our
>output, and surveys can be a useful tool even when response rates are low.
>Why not confirm that we are meeting the needs of core participants?
>	The answer, basically, is that we want the output to be usable by
>anyone, and privileging the people who pay kind of misses the point.  We
>are giving instructions to the Trust to do the best job they can in making
>sure that the output is usable by anyone for any purpose, no matter whether
>they belong to group A, group B, or won't know for many years that they'll
>have an interest at all.
>	As for how to get in touch with them, trustees of the trust are the
>IAOC.  The IAOC's membership is listed here:
>
>http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html
>
>I am sure they will listen carefully to your concerns and will consider the
>issues you raise.
>			regards,
>				Ted
>_______________________________________________
>IETF mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:50:30 +0200

Thanks Ray, that is reassuring.

I don't think this decreases the need for the -outbound document to be
as clear as possible about what the IETF needs are, though.

/Simon

Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]> writes:

> The Trustees will not make any final decisions on licenses stemming
> from the
> outbound-IPR document until after taking the communities' feedback
> into account.
>
> For the Trustees,
> Ray Pelletier
> Trustee
>
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>