Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. Simon My point was that before drafting what conditions the IETF Simon Trust should operate under, we should know what kind of Simon permissions we want the IETF Trust to be able to grant. I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of outbound rights we come up with. That won't be possible, given the current (and even the updated) IETF Trust agreement. The IETF may decide that third parties should be given rights to all contributions, not only to RFCs/I-Ds. Currently, the IETF Trust would be unable to comply to such a wish from the IETF, because the Trust agreement prevent them from doing so. Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. Simon My point was that before drafting what conditions the IETF Simon Trust should operate under, we should know what kind of Simon permissions we want the IETF Trust to be able to grant. I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of outbound rights we come up with. That won't be possible, given the current (and even the updated) IETF Trust agreement. The IETF may decide that third parties should be given rights to all contributions, not only to RFCs/I-Ds. Currently, the IETF Trust would be unable to comply to such a wish from the IETF, because the Trust agreement prevent them from doing so. explain please, I don't understand this. Straw man? Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Lucy E. Lynch wrote: On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. Simon My point was that before drafting what conditions the IETF Simon Trust should operate under, we should know what kind of Simon permissions we want the IETF Trust to be able to grant. I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of outbound rights we come up with. That won't be possible, given the current (and even the updated) IETF Trust agreement. The IETF may decide that third parties should be given rights to all contributions, not only to RFCs/I-Ds. Currently, the IETF Trust would be unable to comply to such a wish from the IETF, because the Trust agreement prevent them from doing so. explain please, I don't understand this. Straw man? To me, the new phrase IETF standards-related documents (such as RFCs, Internet Drafts and the like) clearly covers contributions to the standards process, i.e. the same scope as RFC 3978. I don't see a problem here. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. Simon My point was that before drafting what conditions the IETF Simon Trust should operate under, we should know what kind of Simon permissions we want the IETF Trust to be able to grant. I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of outbound rights we come up with. That won't be possible, given the current (and even the updated) IETF Trust agreement. The IETF may decide that third parties should be given rights to all contributions, not only to RFCs/I-Ds. Currently, the IETF Trust would be unable to comply to such a wish from the IETF, because the Trust agreement prevent them from doing so. explain please, I don't understand this. The new section 9.5 would appear to read: (I note that it would be useful to continuously update to actual document so we can quote it, rather than relying in various e-mails updating portions of the document) The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. Specifically, any license granted by the -- Trust for the use of the Trust Assets consisting of IPR other than - rights in IETF standards-related documents (such as RFCs, Internet Drafts and the like) that have been acquired by the Trust through non-exclusive licenses granted by their contributors pursuant to the IETF community-approved procedures currently set forth in RFC 3978, and any community-approved updates and revisions thereto, shall include provisions stating that (a) the licensee agrees to grant and assign to the Trust all right, title, and interest it may have or - claim in any derivative works of licensee that are based on or -- incorporate the IPR, and (b) the licensee's use of the IPR and any goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of the Trust. The marked sentence imply that not all IPR held by the IETF Trust can be licensed away to third parties without requiring them to give up all rights to derivative works. As far as I see, the IETF community may decide that granting someone the right to IETF IPR, without granting back the rights to derivative works, in some cases. With the current text, the IETF Trust would be unable to comply with that IETF community decision. Straw man? The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. In other words, remove everything after Specifically. The restrictions in the current text limit what the IETF Trust can legally do. If the IETF decide that third parties should be given some rights to IETF IPR, the IETF Trust should be able to comply with that decision. To me, it doesn't seem like it would be able to, given the current text. Thanks, Simon Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote: snip The new section 9.5 would appear to read: (I note that it would be useful to continuously update to actual document so we can quote it, rather than relying in various e-mails updating portions of the document) Updated - see: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/docs/IETF-Trust-12-08-05.pdf The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. Specifically, any license granted by the -- Trust for the use of the Trust Assets consisting of IPR other than - rights in IETF standards-related documents (such as RFCs, Internet Drafts and the like) that have been acquired by the Trust through non-exclusive licenses granted by their contributors pursuant to the IETF community-approved procedures currently set forth in RFC 3978, and any community-approved updates and revisions thereto, shall include provisions stating that (a) the licensee agrees to grant and assign to the Trust all right, title, and interest it may have or - claim in any derivative works of licensee that are based on or -- incorporate the IPR, and (b) the licensee's use of the IPR and any goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of the Trust. The marked sentence imply that not all IPR held by the IETF Trust can be licensed away to third parties without requiring them to give up all rights to derivative works. Simon - Please see Sec. 5.2 - I believe that IPR that transfers into the IETF Trust at closing should all fall under the terms of the current Sec. 9.5 as re-written and if any future contributors wish to add gating conditions to their own (non standards related) IRP, they may want to License those items TO the IETF Trust with appropriate provisions for downstream rights rather than contribute them out-right if derivative rights are a major concern. - regards lel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Updated - see: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/docs/IETF-Trust-12-08-05.pdf Thanks! The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. Specifically, any license granted by the -- Trust for the use of the Trust Assets consisting of IPR other than - rights in IETF standards-related documents (such as RFCs, Internet Drafts and the like) that have been acquired by the Trust through non-exclusive licenses granted by their contributors pursuant to the IETF community-approved procedures currently set forth in RFC 3978, and any community-approved updates and revisions thereto, shall include provisions stating that (a) the licensee agrees to grant and assign to the Trust all right, title, and interest it may have or - claim in any derivative works of licensee that are based on or -- incorporate the IPR, and (b) the licensee's use of the IPR and any goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of the Trust. The marked sentence imply that not all IPR held by the IETF Trust can be licensed away to third parties without requiring them to give up all rights to derivative works. Simon - Please see Sec. 5.2 - I believe that IPR that transfers into the IETF Trust at closing should all fall under the terms of the current Sec. 9.5 as re-written and if any future contributors wish to add gating conditions to their own (non standards related) IRP, they may want to License those items TO the IETF Trust with appropriate provisions for downstream rights rather than contribute them out-right if derivative rights are a major concern. Section 5.2 is about IPR added after the Trust is signed, so I fail to see its relevance. I'm talking about the IPR listed in Schedule A in the document. Please reread my previous e-mail in that context. To make things even more clear, here is the problem I see: The IETF may later decide that, e.g., (excerpts of) records of past IETF meetings should be licensed to a third party, a third party that cannot grant the IETF Trust all rights to derivative works. The IETF may understand the problem for the third party, but decide that it furthers the goal of the IETF anyway, and that it wishes to grant that third party rights to the data. With the current section 9.5, this request from the IETF cannot be approved by the IETF Trust. Replace records of past IETF meetings with other items (except RFC/I-D's) in Schedule A as you please. For example, mailing list archives, web pages, IESG material, document processing history. I agree with Sam that the Trust agreement should not prevent any set of outbound rights that the IETF community may decide on. Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lucy E. Lynch wrote: On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of outbound rights we come up with. That won't be possible, given the current (and even the updated) IETF Trust agreement. The IETF may decide that third parties should be given rights to all contributions, not only to RFCs/I-Ds. Currently, the IETF Trust would be unable to comply to such a wish from the IETF, because the Trust agreement prevent them from doing so. explain please, I don't understand this. Straw man? To me, the new phrase IETF standards-related documents (such as RFCs, Internet Drafts and the like) clearly covers contributions to the standards process, i.e. the same scope as RFC 3978. I don't see a problem here. RFC 3978 define Contributions as: c. IETF Contribution: any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or RFC (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity. Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below). That is considerably more than what even a lax interpretation of IETF standards-related documents would mean. So I do see a (minor) problem. Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
I don't see the problem here. For example, I believe the IETF could license a tool under the GPL if it wanted to. I believe it would need to require that work it paid for was assigned to the trust but that's a fairly common practice. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. Simon My point was that before drafting what conditions the IETF Simon Trust should operate under, we should know what kind of Simon permissions we want the IETF Trust to be able to grant. I think it is sufficient the trust be able to operate under any set of outbound rights we come up with. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) What we then do once we have such control is then something we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that discussion is already happening in the IPR WG. That is an interesting approach. The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that there will be many members of the IETF community who would prefer to have the debate on use before they have surrendered control. Right now we have agreement from the Settlors of the Trust, which is what we need to get started, and refers only to IPR that those Settlors already own. So I don't see your point. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Francis Dupont wrote: In your previous mail you wrote: The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products. I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of many in the IETF community. = I support Simon's concern: as I explained we need to be allowed to freely quote RFCs, for instance in a comment in a piece of open source code. As stated yesterday - that text has been appropriately fixed. For the open source discussion, see the ongoing discussion in the IPR WG. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) What we then do once we have such control is then something we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that discussion is already happening in the IPR WG. That is an interesting approach. The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that there will be many members of the IETF community who would prefer to have the debate on use before they have surrendered control. I agree. It seems this process is being rushed through before all issues are settled or even discussed. I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. The license text that went out for final review was clearly insufficient, and would have made it impossible for the IETF community to fix things later on. The IETF would not have been in control of the IPR if that license would have passed. I stress this: All past IETF IPR would appear to have been lost and out of control for the IETF community if the initial legal document had passed. Giving the community 3 additional days to review the revised legal document, to identify similar problems, is ridiculous. (Brian's announcement of the updated section 9.5 was posted on December 5th, and the deadline extended to December 8th.) The problem raised and the fix was non-trivial. The normal procedure when that happens for a technical document would have been to have another last call. It may have been wise to follow the RFC 2026 procedures when attempting to reach consensus on this work. Please, give the community more time to review this. Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Simon Josefsson wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) What we then do once we have such control is then something we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that discussion is already happening in the IPR WG. That is an interesting approach. The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that there will be many members of the IETF community who would prefer to have the debate on use before they have surrendered control. I agree. As I already pointed out, the rights we will get when the Trust is signed into existence are only the rights that the Settlors currently have; they will be moving from two bodies over which the IETF has *no* control (CNRI and ISOC) to a body whose Trustees are appointed according to RFC 4071. Phill's argument doesn't compute. It seems this process is being rushed through before all issues are settled or even discussed. I imagine we'll be discussing IPR issues for the next twenty years at least. What we are doing *now* is moving some of the IPR into the IETF's control. I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. That is completely wrong. We are moving *some* IPR, not all, from bodies where the IETF has no control to a body that exists only for the benefit of the IETF. The license text that went out for final review was clearly insufficient, and would have made it impossible for the IETF community to fix things later on. The IETF would not have been in control of the IPR if that license would have passed. That isn't a license, it is a Trust Agreement that sets boundary conditions. The community objected to one of the boundary conditions, and we fixed it. That was the purpose of the community review. I stress this: All past IETF IPR would appear to have been lost and out of control for the IETF community if the initial legal document had passed. Absolutely not. That is completely untrue. There was an unintended side effect on derivative works, and we fixed it. If we hadn't been able to fix it in the Trust Agreement, we would have found another way to fix it. Giving the community 3 additional days to review the revised legal document, to identify similar problems, is ridiculous. (Brian's announcement of the updated section 9.5 was posted on December 5th, and the deadline extended to December 8th.) Yes, well, some of us take weekends sometimes. Also, this point was raised with the IAOC during the Vancouver meeting; we didn't rush the fix. The problem raised and the fix was non-trivial. The normal procedure when that happens for a technical document would have been to have another last call. It may have been wise to follow the RFC 2026 procedures when attempting to reach consensus on this work. Please, give the community more time to review this. Unfortunately, we need to close on these documents before the holidays. Sometimes, we have to work 'just in time.' I would have been much happier if we could have exposed the draft several months earlier, but it just wasn't possible. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. Remember that it's signed away FROM bodies that the IETF has NO control over. My point was that before drafting what conditions the IETF Trust should operate under, we should know what kind of permissions we want the IETF Trust to be able to grant. The updated text now permit the IETF Trust to grant rights to Standard documents without requiring the licensee to grant back all rights to derivative works. When looking into what copying conditions the IETF should grant to third parties, we may reach consensus on giving third parties the rights to other Contributions as well, not only RFC and I-Ds. The IETF Trust can never, under the current legal document, give any third party that license. I believe the IETF Trust should be able to grant unrestricted perpetual sub-licenses for all rights to third parties. The IETF Trust doesn't have to use that right, but should be able to, if the IETF community decide if that is what we want. Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) What we then do once we have such control is then something we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that discussion is already happening in the IPR WG. That is an interesting approach. The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that there will be many members of the IETF community who would prefer to have the debate on use before they have surrendered control. I agree. As I already pointed out, the rights we will get when the Trust is signed into existence are only the rights that the Settlors currently have; they will be moving from two bodies over which the IETF has *no* control (CNRI and ISOC) to a body whose Trustees are appointed according to RFC 4071. That is true, but irrelevant to my point. The IETF Trust should be allowed to grant licenses to their IPR without requiring the licensee to grant back all rights to derivative works. The IETF Trust doesn't have to use that ability. For most licenses, requiring the licensee to contribute back all rights to derivative works would be useful. It seems this process is being rushed through before all issues are settled or even discussed. I imagine we'll be discussing IPR issues for the next twenty years at least. What we are doing *now* is moving some of the IPR into the IETF's control. No, some of the IPR that is moved into the IETF Trust will, under the updated IETF Trust license, not be under IETF's control. For example, the IETF cannot grant a third party the right to use IETF IPR without giving up all rights to derivative works. I know RFC/I-D's are excepted now, but there are other material which the IETF may decide to grant third parties rights to. I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled, before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. That is completely wrong. We are moving *some* IPR, not all, from bodies where the IETF has no control to a body that exists only for the benefit of the IETF. Right. And the license in which the IETF Trust should permit all things the IETF may decide to do. Otherwise we lose the control over the IPR. The license text that went out for final review was clearly insufficient, and would have made it impossible for the IETF community to fix things later on. The IETF would not have been in control of the IPR if that license would have passed. That isn't a license, it is a Trust Agreement that sets boundary conditions. That's hair splitting. The boundary conditions imply what flexibility the license can have. If the boundary conditions are too narrow, all licenses are not possible. That restrict the IETF's ability chose some licenses. The community objected to one of the boundary conditions, and we fixed it. That was the purpose of the community review. Right. I stress this: All past IETF IPR would appear to have been lost and out of control for the IETF community if the initial legal document had passed. Absolutely not. That is completely untrue. There was an unintended side effect on derivative works, and we fixed it. If we hadn't been able to fix it in the Trust Agreement, we would have found another way to fix it. You fixed it only for RFC/I-D's, not all material. Giving the community 3 additional days to review the revised legal document, to identify similar problems, is ridiculous. (Brian's announcement of the updated section 9.5 was posted on December 5th, and the deadline extended to December 8th.) Yes, well, some of us take weekends sometimes. Also, this point was raised with the IAOC during the Vancouver meeting; we didn't rush the fix. Was this discussed in public? If not, the fact remains that the community were given 3 days of review time for the updated text. If 3 days isn't rushing the fix, I don't know what is. The problem raised and the fix was non-trivial. The normal procedure when that happens for a technical document would have been to have another last call. It may have been wise to follow the RFC 2026 procedures when attempting to reach consensus on this work. Please, give the community more time to review this. Unfortunately, we need to close on these documents before the holidays. Sometimes, we have to work 'just in time.' I would have been much happier if we could have exposed the draft several months earlier, but it just wasn't possible. I understand, but still feel this was rushed ahead. I don't understand why there is a hurry to move this forward now. Thanks, Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org
RE: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Simon, As I understand it, the IETF has negotiated for nominal control of IPR vested in other organizations that was developed through IETF activities. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of the trust. However, if that is the situation, two things are easily apparent: 1) the IETF is not in a power-position to decide unilaterally what rights it will obtain in negotiation and 2) a favorable negotiation position should be cemented as quickly as possible. It is difficult for those of us that were not involved in the negotiations to determine whether or not the position now represented is the most favorable position obtainable, but it does seem likely. Personally, I am inclined to trust that the people negotiating for the IETF have been doing, and continue to do the right things. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Simon Josefsson -- Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:17 AM -- To: Brian E Carpenter -- Cc: IAOC; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted -- -- Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- -- Simon Josefsson wrote: -- Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- -- -- -- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own -- IPR, which has -- previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal -- statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) -- -- What we then do once we have such control is then -- something we can -- discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that -- discussion is already -- happening in the IPR WG. -- -- That is an interesting approach. -- -- The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that -- there will be many -- members of the IETF community who would prefer to have -- the debate on use -- before they have surrendered control. -- I agree. -- -- As I already pointed out, the rights we will get when the Trust -- is signed into existence are only the rights that the Settlors -- currently have; they will be moving from two bodies over which -- the IETF has *no* control (CNRI and ISOC) to a body whose Trustees -- are appointed according to RFC 4071. -- -- That is true, but irrelevant to my point. -- -- The IETF Trust should be allowed to grant licenses to their IPR -- without requiring the licensee to grant back all rights to -- derivative -- works. The IETF Trust doesn't have to use that ability. For most -- licenses, requiring the licensee to contribute back all rights to -- derivative works would be useful. -- -- It seems this process is being rushed through before all -- issues are -- settled or even discussed. -- -- I imagine we'll be discussing IPR issues for the next twenty years -- at least. What we are doing *now* is moving some of the IPR into -- the IETF's control. -- -- No, some of the IPR that is moved into the IETF Trust will, -- under the -- updated IETF Trust license, not be under IETF's control. -- For example, -- the IETF cannot grant a third party the right to use IETF -- IPR without -- giving up all rights to derivative works. I know RFC/I-D's are -- excepted now, but there are other material which the IETF may decide -- to grant third parties rights to. -- -- I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue -- was settled, -- before all IPR is signed away to some external body -- that, to me, it -- seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over. -- -- That is completely wrong. We are moving *some* IPR, not -- all, from bodies -- where the IETF has no control to a body that exists only -- for the benefit -- of the IETF. -- -- Right. And the license in which the IETF Trust should permit all -- things the IETF may decide to do. Otherwise we lose the -- control over -- the IPR. -- -- The license text that went out for final review was clearly -- insufficient, and would have made it impossible for the -- IETF community -- to fix things later on. The IETF would not have been in -- control of -- the IPR if that license would have passed. -- -- That isn't a license, it is a Trust Agreement that sets boundary -- conditions. -- -- That's hair splitting. The boundary conditions imply what -- flexibility -- the license can have. If the boundary conditions are too -- narrow, all -- licenses are not possible. That restrict the IETF's ability chose -- some licenses. -- -- The community objected to one of the boundary conditions, and we -- fixed it. That was the purpose of the community review. -- -- Right. -- -- I stress this: All past IETF IPR would appear to have -- been lost and -- out of control for the IETF community if the initial -- legal document -- had passed. -- -- Absolutely not. That is completely untrue. There was an -- unintended side -- effect on derivative works, and we fixed it. If we hadn't -- been able to -- fix it in the Trust
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Simon Josefsson wrote: unacceptable to the Debian and FreeBSD community. They are not in a legal position to grant the Trust all rights to derivative works of the work that include portions of RFCs. We're back at CC-BY vs. CC-BY-SA, aren't we ? If they are unwilling to share alike they shall not create derivative work from RFCs. They can still use them as is. Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Behalf Of Simon Josefsson The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products. I believe the requirement to give up all rights to derivative works of the IETF IPR would be unacceptable to the Debian and FreeBSD community. They are not in a legal position to grant the Trust all rights to derivative works of the work that include portions of RFCs. That raises a question that I have not seen answered yet. What is the purpose of the trust if not to attempt to prevent unauthorized derrivative works? Today it is possible to make a proposal to IETF process, have that WG implode (e.g. MARID) and then take the specification to an alternative forum. This might appear to some to be a good idea. In practice however the parties that might do such a thing are the parties that begin a standards process by asking the question 'what forum should we choose?'. It would be a very bad idea for the IETF to attempt to make that choice irrevocable. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon, You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html Thanks! This was also pointed out in private e-mail. The new text do solve my concern. I do think it is somewhat confusing, though. The second half starts with Specifically, but the qualifications and restrictions in the second half does not follow from, or even seem related to, the qualifications in the first half. My concern with the short review period remains though. Thanks, Simon Brian Simon Josefsson wrote: The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products. I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of many in the IETF community. In the IPR WG, I have documented that implementations of IETF documents distributed by Debian, FreeBSD and Sun need the rights to incorporate portions of RFCs in their products. The section reads: 9.5 Licenses The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. Specifically, any license granted by the Trust for the use of the Trust Assets consisting of IPR shall include provisions stating that (a) the licensee agrees to grant and assign to the Trust all right, title, and interest it may have -- or claim in any derivative works of Licensee that are based on or - incorporate the IPR, and (b) the licensee’s use of the IPR and any --- goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of the Trust. I believe the requirement to give up all rights to derivative works of the IETF IPR would be unacceptable to the Debian and FreeBSD community. They are not in a legal position to grant the Trust all rights to derivative works of the work that include portions of RFCs. I assume companies like Sun would find it difficult to grant the IETF Trust all rights to the Solaris operating system, which include excerpts from RFCs. If the IETF, in RFC 3978bis, gave third parties the right to use, modify and distribute RFCs, this would not be a problem. But RFC 3978 nor the current RFC 3978bis proposal does not grant those rights. The only mechanism to be able to grant those rights to the Debian and the FreeBSD community in the future will be to release those works via the IETF Trust. As described above, the IETF Trust cannot grant a sub-license without the requiring the above. I believe that requirement is unacceptable to most members in the IETF community. To fix this problem, remove the sentences that begin with Specifically, thus making the section read: The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. I believe the issues raised under Specifically do not follow from the first part of the paragraph. They seriously limits the IETF Trusts capabilities to grant sub-licenses, and should be removed. The IETF Trust should be able to grant unrestricted sub-licenses. Finally, less than 4 weeks of time to review a long complicated legal document is insufficient. My lawyer is on vacation until after Christmas. Lawyers from organizations such as the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cannot be expected to respond this fast. This document is given less review time than even some technical documents. Given the importance of this work, I believe one year of review would be more appropriate, if you wanted to guarantee the widest possible review of relevant and competent people. It takes time to get useful output from lawyers. (The less than 4 weeks is based on the first announcement posted on November 11, and the now extended deadline of December 8th.) Thanks, Simon Brian Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (posted for Lucy Lynch, IAOC Chair) All - The amended language for Section 9.5 (Licensing) of the IETF Trust was posted to the IETF lists on December 1st and the IETF Trust FAQ has been updated to reflect the new text (see below). We have also added additional details on the handling of historical
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Simon, You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html Brian Simon Josefsson wrote: The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products. I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of many in the IETF community. In the IPR WG, I have documented that implementations of IETF documents distributed by Debian, FreeBSD and Sun need the rights to incorporate portions of RFCs in their products. The section reads: 9.5 Licenses The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. Specifically, any license granted by the Trust for the use of the Trust Assets consisting of IPR shall include provisions stating that (a) the licensee agrees to grant and assign to the Trust all right, title, and interest it may have -- or claim in any derivative works of Licensee that are based on or - incorporate the IPR, and (b) the licensee’s use of the IPR and any --- goodwill associated therewith shall inure to the benefit of the Trust. I believe the requirement to give up all rights to derivative works of the IETF IPR would be unacceptable to the Debian and FreeBSD community. They are not in a legal position to grant the Trust all rights to derivative works of the work that include portions of RFCs. I assume companies like Sun would find it difficult to grant the IETF Trust all rights to the Solaris operating system, which include excerpts from RFCs. If the IETF, in RFC 3978bis, gave third parties the right to use, modify and distribute RFCs, this would not be a problem. But RFC 3978 nor the current RFC 3978bis proposal does not grant those rights. The only mechanism to be able to grant those rights to the Debian and the FreeBSD community in the future will be to release those works via the IETF Trust. As described above, the IETF Trust cannot grant a sub-license without the requiring the above. I believe that requirement is unacceptable to most members in the IETF community. To fix this problem, remove the sentences that begin with Specifically, thus making the section read: The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust Assets on such terms, subject to Section 7.1, as the Trustees deem appropriate; provided, however, that the Trust shall not grant any license that would be deemed a transfer of ownership or abandonment of any Trust Assets under applicable law. I believe the issues raised under Specifically do not follow from the first part of the paragraph. They seriously limits the IETF Trusts capabilities to grant sub-licenses, and should be removed. The IETF Trust should be able to grant unrestricted sub-licenses. Finally, less than 4 weeks of time to review a long complicated legal document is insufficient. My lawyer is on vacation until after Christmas. Lawyers from organizations such as the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cannot be expected to respond this fast. This document is given less review time than even some technical documents. Given the importance of this work, I believe one year of review would be more appropriate, if you wanted to guarantee the widest possible review of relevant and competent people. It takes time to get useful output from lawyers. (The less than 4 weeks is based on the first announcement posted on November 11, and the now extended deadline of December 8th.) Thanks, Simon Brian Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (posted for Lucy Lynch, IAOC Chair) All - The amended language for Section 9.5 (Licensing) of the IETF Trust was posted to the IETF lists on December 1st and the IETF Trust FAQ has been updated to reflect the new text (see below). We have also added additional details on the handling of historical data. As we develop procedures for the transfer of assets into the IETF Trust and an inventory of items held by the IETF Trust we will publish them to the IAOC web site (see: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/) Several people asked for additional time to review our final language, and with that in mind, I would like to extend this Call one last time to December 8th, 2005. Please send comments to: ietf@ietf.org or iaoc.ietf.org - Thanks Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... What is the purpose of the trust if not to attempt to prevent unauthorized derrivative works? Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) What we then do once we have such control is then something we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that discussion is already happening in the IPR WG. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.) What we then do once we have such control is then something we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that discussion is already happening in the IPR WG. That is an interesting approach. The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that there will be many members of the IETF community who would prefer to have the debate on use before they have surrendered control. The IETF constitution is not one that lends itself well to the 'trust me' approach. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF Trust License is too restricted
In your previous mail you wrote: The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products. I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of many in the IETF community. = I support Simon's concern: as I explained we need to be allowed to freely quote RFCs, for instance in a comment in a piece of open source code. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
