Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
This didn't seem to make it -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:43 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd) Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost in the noise, so I'll repost. The notion of giving source code but retaining patent rights is not entirely academic. Novell asserted (for a while anyway) that it never transfered patents covering Unix to SCO. Some people/companies are certainly interested in selling/transferring copyright and patent rights separately, as well as trademarks (e.g. the Unix trademark now owned by The Open Group) The IETF needs to get everything necessary to use the software and/or data, and everything necessary to give the software/data to someone else to use. --Dean -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property One problem: One can have full control over the software source code copyright but not over the patents that cover use of the software. If you don't have a patent license, you can't use patented software. The text should be modified to include specifications that one is given control over the applicable copyrights, patents, and trademarks as necessary for use by the general public. As someone pointed out, open source software should meet the definition. Open patents should also meet this definition. Aside: This is an example of why you should avoid the term intellectual property. There is really no such thing as intellectual property. Instead there are patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Each of these are unique. Thinking of a single concept of intellectual property leads one to miss the differences between them. patents, copyrights, trademarks is just a few more letters to type, and leads to much greater clarity. intellectual property is a term, like partial-birth abortion that was made up by one side to advance its views. Neither are technical terms. Both are misleading. --Dean On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give IASA and the IETF the perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF activities. This is necessary to make sure the IETF has access to the data it needs at all times, and to ensure that the IASA can change contractors as needed without disrupting IETF work. Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) (A) If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF (an IASA Contract) provides for the creation, development, modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation, any data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing lists, correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the like) (Data), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable
RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
This doesn't seem to have made it to the list... -- Forwarded Message -- Date: mandag, januar 24, 2005 15:53:48 -0500 From: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? JLC No problem. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software JLC I had tried to ensure this, but if there's something that seems to be a problem I'm all for fixing it! By the way, this language related primarily to IASA's rights in software developed for it by someone else, and didn't really have much to do with software developed by IASA itself. IASA/IETF is completely free to contribute to open source projects with software developed by IASA personnel, to the extent that there are any. -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:34 AM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: (explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words) --On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. On reading the text again, I think this text: (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. actually is OK for making software free - that would come under the section that says: or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? The IASA and its designee(s) says that IASA, not ISOC, decides to give others permission to use it - ISOC can't give orders to IASA to limit it. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software. Brian -- End Forwarded Message -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? JLC No problem. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software JLC I had tried to ensure this, but if there's something that seems to be a problem I'm all for fixing it! By the way, this language related primarily to IASA's rights in software developed for it by someone else, and didn't really have much to do with software developed by IASA itself. IASA/IETF is completely free to contribute to open source projects with software developed by IASA personnel, to the extent that there are any. -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:34 AM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: (explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words) --On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. On reading the text again, I think this text: (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. actually is OK for making software free - that would come under the section that says: or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? The IASA and its designee(s) says that IASA, not ISOC, decides to give others permission to use it - ISOC can't give orders to IASA to limit it. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Issue 820: RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd )
I included an issue number. The text had just made it to the list before your repost. So I have added the suggested wording with Haralds adjustment to the revision 05. Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:49 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd) This doesn't seem to have made it to the list... -- Forwarded Message -- Date: mandag, januar 24, 2005 15:53:48 -0500 From: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? JLC No problem. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software JLC I had tried to ensure this, but if there's something that seems to be a problem I'm all for fixing it! By the way, this language related primarily to IASA's rights in software developed for it by someone else, and didn't really have much to do with software developed by IASA itself. IASA/IETF is completely free to contribute to open source projects with software developed by IASA personnel, to the extent that there are any. -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:34 AM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: (explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words) --On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. On reading the text again, I think this text: (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. actually is OK for making software free - that would come under the section that says: or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? The IASA and its designee(s) says that IASA, not ISOC, decides to give others permission to use it - ISOC can't give orders to IASA to limit it. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software. Brian -- End Forwarded Message -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost in the noise, so I'll repost. The notion of giving source code but retaining patent rights is not entirely academic. Novell asserted (for a while anyway) that it never transfered patents covering Unix to SCO. Some people/companies are certainly interested in selling/transferring copyright and patent rights separately, as well as trademarks (e.g. the Unix trademark now owned by The Open Group) The IETF needs to get everything necessary to use the software and/or data, and everything necessary to give the software/data to someone else to use. --Dean -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property One problem: One can have full control over the software source code copyright but not over the patents that cover use of the software. If you don't have a patent license, you can't use patented software. The text should be modified to include specifications that one is given control over the applicable copyrights, patents, and trademarks as necessary for use by the general public. As someone pointed out, open source software should meet the definition. Open patents should also meet this definition. Aside: This is an example of why you should avoid the term intellectual property. There is really no such thing as intellectual property. Instead there are patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Each of these are unique. Thinking of a single concept of intellectual property leads one to miss the differences between them. patents, copyrights, trademarks is just a few more letters to type, and leads to much greater clarity. intellectual property is a term, like partial-birth abortion that was made up by one side to advance its views. Neither are technical terms. Both are misleading. --Dean On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give IASA and the IETF the perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF activities. This is necessary to make sure the IETF has access to the data it needs at all times, and to ensure that the IASA can change contractors as needed without disrupting IETF work. Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) (A) If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF (an IASA Contract) provides for the creation, development, modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation, any data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing lists, correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the like) (Data), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
You gave an excellent argument why one should use intellectual property and not the individual categories. You forgot service marks, for one thing. --On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 15:51:43 -0500 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost in the noise, so I'll repost. The notion of giving source code but retaining patent rights is not entirely academic. Novell asserted (for a while anyway) that it never transfered patents covering Unix to SCO. Some people/companies are certainly interested in selling/transferring copyright and patent rights separately, as well as trademarks (e.g. the Unix trademark now owned by The Open Group) The IETF needs to get everything necessary to use the software and/or data, and everything necessary to give the software/data to someone else to use. --Dean -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property One problem: One can have full control over the software source code copyright but not over the patents that cover use of the software. If you don't have a patent license, you can't use patented software. The text should be modified to include specifications that one is given control over the applicable copyrights, patents, and trademarks as necessary for use by the general public. As someone pointed out, open source software should meet the definition. Open patents should also meet this definition. Aside: This is an example of why you should avoid the term intellectual property. There is really no such thing as intellectual property. Instead there are patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Each of these are unique. Thinking of a single concept of intellectual property leads one to miss the differences between them. patents, copyrights, trademarks is just a few more letters to type, and leads to much greater clarity. intellectual property is a term, like partial-birth abortion that was made up by one side to advance its views. Neither are technical terms. Both are misleading. --Dean On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give IASA and the IETF the perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF activities. This is necessary to make sure the IETF has access to the data it needs at all times, and to ensure that the IASA can change contractors as needed without disrupting IETF work. Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) (A) If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF (an IASA Contract) provides for the creation, development, modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation, any data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing lists, correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the like) (Data), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people? Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or are we all just unsure what to say about it? --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote: I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people? Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or are we all just unsure what to say about it? My take is that if we develop it, we can set up the licensing to be free and sublicensable. No need to put that in the BCP. If we are using a service developed by a provider also serving others, the provider may well want to license certain software to us without granting us to sublicense it to others, as that's their business. Trying to say we insist all software licensed to us be sublicensable by us seems to have the back door effect of eliminating some providers. I don't think that's the right thing to do, and I don't think we should put in the BCP. It would certainly be something an IAD/IAOC could look at, but as part of constellation of factors. Again, though, this doesn't limit us from saying what states the IP we develop ends up in. regards, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ted At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote: I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people? Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or are we all just unsure what to say about it? Ted My take is that if we develop it, we can set up the licensing Ted to be free and sublicensable. No need to put that in the Ted BCP. OK, although I think we are insisting on similar things already. I'm also concerned about sublicensing the rights to data. I think I'm particularly concerned about this issue explicitly because we don't have these rights under RFC 3667 and when I first brought up the issue Harald didn't think it would be a good thing to insist on. Ted If we are using a service developed by a provider also Ted serving others, the provider may well want to license certain Ted software to us without granting us to sublicense it to Ted others, as that's their business. Completely agreed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
Passed the question to Jorge. If the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. doesn't cover sublicensing (as in letting others use to our benefit), it should. Harald --On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 18:23:17 -0500 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people? Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or are we all just unsure what to say about it? --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
(explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words) --On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. On reading the text again, I think this text: (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. actually is OK for making software free - that would come under the section that says: or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? The IASA and its designee(s) says that IASA, not ISOC, decides to give others permission to use it - ISOC can't give orders to IASA to limit it. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: (explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words) --On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. On reading the text again, I think this text: (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. actually is OK for making software free - that would come under the section that says: or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says .. and ISOC will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD. Jorge - see any problems with removing this? The IASA and its designee(s) says that IASA, not ISOC, decides to give others permission to use it - ISOC can't give orders to IASA to limit it. We should perhaps ask Jorge to modify his words to ensure that they don't preclude IASA from using or contributing to open source software. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Date: 2005-01-24 08:12 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org CC: Jorge Contreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] (explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words) On reading the text again, I think this text: (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. actually is OK for making software free - that would come under the section that says: or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). Several concerns with the specific text re. open source software: 1. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software seems inconsistent (in particular the word sole) with the spirit of open source software. 2. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially available software ... specifically seems to favor commercial software, but not open source software, by providing exemptions for commercial software. 3. It is not clear (to this non-lawyer) what the status of parenthetical remarks is -- I'd be more comfortable if the including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license were not parenthesized. I think Brian Carpenter's suggestion for review and modification to ensure that use of or contribution to open source software is not precluded is a path forward. To which I'd add that use of open source software shouldn't be disadvantaged. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
One problem: One can have full control over the software source code copyright but not over the patents that cover use of the software. If you don't have a patent license, you can't use patented software. The text should be modified to include specifications that one is given control over the applicable copyrights, patents, and trademarks as necessary for use by the general public. As someone pointed out, open source software should meet the definition. Open patents should also meet this definition. Aside: This is an example of why you should avoid the term intellectual property. There is really no such thing as intellectual property. Instead there are patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Each of these are unique. Thinking of a single concept of intellectual property leads one to miss the differences between them. patents, copyrights, trademarks is just a few more letters to type, and leads to much greater clarity. intellectual property is a term, like partial-birth abortion that was made up by one side to advance its views. Neither are technical terms. Both are misleading. --Dean On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give IASA and the IETF the perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF activities. This is necessary to make sure the IETF has access to the data it needs at all times, and to ensure that the IASA can change contractors as needed without disrupting IETF work. Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) (A) If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF (an IASA Contract) provides for the creation, development, modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation, any data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing lists, correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the like) (Data), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. (C) If an IASA Contract relates to the licensing of third party software, the IAD shall ensure that such license expressly permits use of such software for and on behalf of IASA and/or IETF, as applicable, and that such license is transferable in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (Removability). In addition, the principle stated in 2.2(7) should be expanded to include software, as well as data.
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
I'm still concerned with not having the ability to sublicense rights we have under this section. The last time I discussed this issue Harald pointed out that I was asking for more rights than we had under 3667. However I have sense been convinced that 3667 is broken. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Date: 2005-01-21 09:40 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) [...] contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) [...] ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: ... My biggest problem with this is size.. I think in the case of text resulting from legal review, that is not something we should worry about. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
On 1/21/2005 10:49, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. I think Jorge's text is much better than what we had. It fills in gaps and eliminates ambiguities. IETF can still decide whether software developed for it should be made available on an open source basis, but that should be up to the IETF. Jorge's text makes that possible. Scott Brim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
On Friday, January 21, 2005 15:40:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. This looks problematic to me. It suggests that if the IASA funds development work on an open-source ticketing system, that ISOC would not be allowed to use that system without the consent of the IAD. This is wrong - if the IASA is going to fund any open-source development, it should not expect to have control over who uses the result. Also, I'm a bit concerned about language that tries to limit what ISOC can do without the written consent of the IAD. Given that the IAD will be an employee of ISOC, it's not clear that this actually provides any protection. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
