Subject: RE: Copyright statements in drafts

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:25:31 -0400 (EDT)

I think that the copyrigt statement (not the "all rights reserved"
line Donald points out though) needs to be in all IDs

my logic follows the requirement that the author give the IETF the
right to publish as an ID and thus must transfer the non exclusive limited
right to publish the ID - the IETF has a copyright (limited use etc) on
the actual ID as published even though the author retains all
other copyright rights - this also makes it clear that the ID
can not just be grabbed by someone (outside the IETF) for their
own (unatributed) use

Scott

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:05:38 -0700

>can not just be grabbed by someone (outside the IETF) for their

As an archair lawyer, I would say that this makes absolutely no sense 
at all. Copyright is atomic unless stated otherwise. If you say 
"Copyright ISOC", you have no "other copyright rights".

Before we start telling people that they will retain some rights even 
if they assign the copyright to ISOC, we need to get a legal opinion 
from the IETF lawyers.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:28:56 +0300 (EEST)

> "Copyright ISOC", you have no "other copyright rights".

FWIW, at least here you *cannot*, in any way AFAIK, transfer all of
your copyrights to another organization with that kind of clause.  
There are some basic rights (like being identified as the author) that
you'll *always* keep no matter what it says in the document.

And I think that's what's Scott was after.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:59:03 -0400 (EDT)

> "Copyright ISOC", you have no "other copyright rights".

teh copyright in question is on the ID itself

> if they assign the copyright to ISOC, we need to get a legal opinion 

we did - that is what is in RFC 3667

Scott

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:49:53 -0700

Hi,

I am not sure whether I missed this in the discussion, but I can see some
problems with Copyright statements in early drafts. There may well be people
or organizations which already hold patents or copyrights for things that
find their way into I-Ds. If they are not actively involved in that
particular WG, they may not discover any infringements until the RFC is in
IETF wide Last Call. Hopefully we provide for Copyright objections at that
stage, even if there has been umpteen earlier I-Ds on the subject.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of IETF IPP WG
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email [email-masked]
Web    www.manros.com

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:01:31 -0700

--On 3. juni 2004 15:49 -0700 [email-masked] wrote:

> problems with Copyright statements in early drafts. There may well be
> people or organizations which already hold patents or copyrights for
> things that find their way into I-Ds. If they are not actively involved
> in that particular WG, they may not discover any infringements until the
> RFC is in IETF wide Last Call. Hopefully we provide for Copyright
> objections at that stage, even if there has been umpteen earlier I-Ds on
> the subject.

We do - which is why the phrase "reasonably and personally known to the 
submitter" in RFC 3667 / 3668 is so important.

                   Harald