Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
Clint Chaplin wrote: On 1/23/09, TSG tglas...@earthlink.net wrote: Contreras, Jorge wrote: Why not just ask them???. All authors have a responsibility to maintain their contact info, otherwise it is easily argued that they abandoned their claims in that IP. Were it to be that simple. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. There are lots of cases in the music industry and in the publishing industry where an author has simply disappeared, and yet copyright still exists. Unless the author can be located, a lot of works cannot be republished, because the copyright owner cannot be found to give permission. You mean under new terms Clint? The IETF still has the rights to republish that work and derivatives under the original submission agreement and that right extends in perpetuity. The problem is that the Trust wants to convert this IP Library to something it can license for money, and this is contrary to all of the RFC2026 submissions. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1906 - Release Date: 1/21/2009 7:07 AM ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
Contreras, Jorge wrote: Larry - thank you for your contribution! I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may not even be necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most RFCs are joint works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing: In the United States, unless they agree otherwise, each of the joint authors may separately license a joint work--and all of its parts--without the consent of any of the other joint authors, and every author must account to the other authors for their share of the profits derived from the license. Consult local law to determine whether one owner of a joint work may license without the consent of the others or must account to the others for his or her licensing revenue. The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. Lets identify these then... these are perhaps Publication Desk vs. NoteWell type submissions? In some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than i.e. identifiable components of contributions collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not possible, in hindight, to determine whether works with multiple authors are joint works or collective works. Why not just ask them???. All authors have a responsibility to maintain their contact info, otherwise it is easily argued that they abandoned their claims in that IP. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1850 - Release Date: 12/15/2008 5:04 PM ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
On 1/23/09, TSG tglas...@earthlink.net wrote: Contreras, Jorge wrote: Why not just ask them???. All authors have a responsibility to maintain their contact info, otherwise it is easily argued that they abandoned their claims in that IP. Were it to be that simple. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. There are lots of cases in the music industry and in the publishing industry where an author has simply disappeared, and yet copyright still exists. Unless the author can be located, a lot of works cannot be republished, because the copyright owner cannot be found to give permission. -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Principal Engineer Corporate Standardization (US) SISA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
[also RE: where to send RFC 5378 license form] To: IETF TRUST I have signed and faxed a copy of the IETF Documents Non-Exclusive License to +1-703-326-9881. Not that my technical contributions actually matter, but perhaps someone here will someday want to copy or create derivative works of my words here. As far as I can tell, if everyone here who ever contributed to an IETF document signs these forms, then you can treat the arguments I've made here about not needing copyright for industry standards as hypothetical and moot. Having a very permissive copyright license to rely on is better than not having one, even if (as I argue) in many cases a copyright license isn't necessary in order to create a copy or derivative work of a functional specification! I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may not even be necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most RFCs are joint works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing: In the United States, unless they agree otherwise, each of the joint authors may separately license a joint work--and all of its parts--without the consent of any of the other joint authors, and every author must account to the other authors for their share of the profits derived from the license. Consult local law to determine whether one owner of a joint work may license without the consent of the others or must account to the others for his or her licensing revenue. Given that IETF is non-profit, there almost certainly won't be profits here to share. I'd appreciate hearing back from any lawyers on this list, particularly outside the U.S., whether having *most IETF contributors (and their employers!)* sign this form would, for all practical purposes, solve the problem reported here and let us get on with our lives writing and updating industry standards however we wish? Fortunately for us, if the living sign we may not need the permission of deceased contributors after all, at least for joint works. I can't imagine that anyone fully committed to the culture of IETF would refuse to sign such a license now, or as a way of reaffirming his or her past commitment. I can't imagine anyone--particularly the companies participating in IETF--who would resist signing such a license as a precondition to participation in IETF standards-setting proceedings. But maybe I'm wrong? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen Author of Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (Prentice Hall 2004) -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:51 PM To: Contreras, Jorge; Randy Presuhn; IETF Discussion Subject: RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms --On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 17:37 -0500 Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com wrote: As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names required to cover all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a MIB module? See above. In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-code text. Maybe I still don't fully understand what 5398 does, but, while that broad licensing of MIB modules presumably permits the IETF (and others) to work with them, it doesn't imply the transfers to the Trust, and ability of the Trust to relicense, required by 5398, does it? And, if not, the broad licensing of MIB modules doesn't help a new author of a document that incorporates a MIB module make the assertions that 5398 requires, does it? If the answer is no, then such an author would still have to go back to the original Contributor(s) of the MIB module and persuade them to generate the new license, just as he or she would with any other older contributed text. Right? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
Larry - thank you for your contribution! I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may not even be necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most RFCs are joint works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing: In the United States, unless they agree otherwise, each of the joint authors may separately license a joint work--and all of its parts--without the consent of any of the other joint authors, and every author must account to the other authors for their share of the profits derived from the license. Consult local law to determine whether one owner of a joint work may license without the consent of the others or must account to the others for his or her licensing revenue. The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. In some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not possible, in hindight, to determine whether works with multiple authors are joint works or collective works. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
Jorge Contreras wrote: The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. In some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not possible, in hindight, to determine whether works with multiple authors are joint works or collective works. Hi Jorge, Once again the standards world surprises me. I thought that IETF RFCs--indeed any standards specifications developed by groups of cooperating engineers--are inherently joint works. The notion that a single person writes and owns the words he himself puts into a specification is very odd. Is that notion a part of IETF culture? It is true that the best evidence of a joint work is a contract between the joint authors declaring it to be so, and that otherwise a collective work is generally assumed. What we lack are those contracts from the early days, which is why the new form we're now signing is so good going forward. But even in the past, in the case of IETF RFCs, weren't IETF contributors expected to be active participants in joint creativity and inventiveness? Could anyone here realistically deny that his or her IETF efforts were joint? Best regards, /Larry -Original Message- From: Contreras, Jorge [mailto:jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:28 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; IETF discussion list Subject: RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys Larry - thank you for your contribution! I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may not even be necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most RFCs are joint works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing: In the United States, unless they agree otherwise, each of the joint authors may separately license a joint work--and all of its parts--without the consent of any of the other joint authors, and every author must account to the other authors for their share of the profits derived from the license. Consult local law to determine whether one owner of a joint work may license without the consent of the others or must account to the others for his or her licensing revenue. The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. In some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not possible, in hindight, to determine whether works with multiple authors are joint works or collective works. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
Contreras, Jorge wrote: The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works. In some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than collaborating to produce joint text. Unfortunately it is not possible, in hindight, to determine whether works with multiple authors are joint works or collective works. Ignoring independent submissions, how is this distinction meaningful when the authors are operating as agents of an IETF working group? For any IETF document, the fact that someone took lead on a particular bit of text makes it easy to miss the fact that authors *must* (and do) make modifications at the will of the working group. By the time a working group document is issued, it has been massively changed in many small and large ways, according to tidbits of input from many different people. Most standards groups do not assign author names to the document, possibly for this reason. In the IETF, we've found listing the names of the primary contributors as useful, but I think that here it has resulted in a misleading view of who has been in control of the text. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
