l, 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
>I suggest we change the text in section 3 from:
> The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions
> that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF.
>
>to:
>
> The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not
> limited to trademarks, domain names, and copy
- Please spell out "intellectual property rights".
> I think that IPR was defined elsewhere
- Domain names are not IPR.
> For this purpose, I would treat them like IPR
- What about patents?
> IETF should not be getting patents on anything.
___
Iet
es to IPR that IETF
itself gets (e.g., in the IETF databases, lists, etc.)
It would have little to do with the IPR in standards and
standards-track documents.
-Original Message-
From: John Leslie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:24 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Mar
>In reviewing the IASA BCP I noticed a minor issue:
>S 2.2 and 3.1 refer to "perpetual right to use, display, etc."
>The standard language here typically includes both "royalty-free"
>(or "fully-paid up") and "irrevocable". I would particularly think
>we want to specify that no future royalties a
> But,
> using this draft with the serious problem Simon spotted and the
> minor "no justification for adding boilerplate" one that I
> spotted as the most recent of what have been many examples, it
> appears that the IAOC/Trustees are composed of human beings with
> many other things on their
> The statement in 2.b, in conjunction with a July 2009 Effective
> Date (see the top of the document), leaves documents published
> between the presumptive Effective Date of the procedures in
> effect today and that date in a strange sort of never-never
> land, since 2.b doesn't mention 5378.
T
> -Original Message-
> From: trustees-boun...@ietf.org
> [mailto:trustees-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: trust...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org;
> rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org; i...@iab.org; i...@ietf.org
> Subje
> Ok. So is the point then just not to have to issue a new RFC if the
> Trust decides they want a different license? I.e. is that the
> "future-proofing" that the proposed change is supposed to provide?
I apologize if my unfortunate use of the term "future-proofing" has
caused angst. But I
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: Michael Montemurro
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Contreras, Jorge
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:38 PM
> To: 'Fred Baker'; Michael Montemurro
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: RE: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
>
>
>
&g
Dropping "for the avoidance of doubt" is fine.
The ability to prohibit derivative works of I-Ds is still allowed, just
as it was under 3978. See Section 6.b of this document.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of C.T. Aiken
> Just as a simple "for example": what is the set of names that
> needs to be
> posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're
> required to put in our
> documents?
The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust. No author permissions
are needed.
> As a slightly harder example: what i
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:52 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: Randy Presuhn; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
>
> Jorge,
>
>
> Who owns the oft-repeated
>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
> "OPTIONAL" in this
>document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
> I'm referring to the bits effectively required by th
> >> (I tracked the first sentence of the "Managed objects are accessed"
> >> phrase back to RFC 1065, August 1988; authors-of-record
> were Marshall
> >> Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that,
> of course.)
> >
> > That date is before RFC 1310 which makes things more intere
Larry - thank you for your contribution!
> I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may
> not even be
> necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most
> RFCs are joint
> works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing:
>
> "In the United States
Dave -- very useful -- thanks!!
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:56 PM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Cc: Contreras, Jorge
> Subject: History of RFC copyright text
>
>
>
> Bob Braden wrote
> >> As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names
> >> required to cover
> >> all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a
> >> MIB module?
> >
> > See above. In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly
> > under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-cod
Title: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Yes, I think we mention federal works in 5378. Unfortunately I don't think there are a lot of them, but have not done an inventory.
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks
To: Contreras, Jorge
Cc: Simon Jose
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson
> wrote:
> > ...
> >> If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains
> trademarked
> >> words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have
> signed the
> >> IETF Trust form if the document contains trademarks. You need t
Eric,
Thank you for the careful reading and constructive suggestions.
> This document contains material from IETF Documents or IETF
> Contributions published before November 10, 2008 and, to the
> Contributor?s knowledge, the person(s) controlling the
> copyright in
> such materi
Title: Re: RFC 5378 "contributions"
No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
- Original Message -
From: ietf-boun...@ie
en given legal advice that the odds of a judge accepting
> an early-November date contrary to that interpretation are
> fairly small) need to behave as if we cannot assume that
> Contributions made before late November or early December do not
> imply permission to use the Contribution
> -Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:15 AM
> To: Ed Juskevicius
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; ietf-annou...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org;
> i...@iab.org; i...@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org;
>
Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would recommend leaving
6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was circulated.
6.c.iii
> OLD:
>
> > iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
> > Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such Pre-5378
> > Mate
Title: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less value-laden than "wish"?
- Original Message -
From: John C Klensin
To: Contreras, Jorge; Thomas Na
ginal Message-
> From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 7:04 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: Trustees; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
> work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
>
> At 14:24 08-02-2009,
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
> work-around t
> For the above text to be more clear, I'd suggest something like:
>
> NEW PROPOSED
>
> c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
>desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
>works of an IETF Contribution, then one of the notice
>
> Shall we ask the FSF members of IETF also to comment on the
> need for IETF to
> develop a comprehensive policy toward patents so that encumbrances to
> Internet standards can be understood and avoided in the future?
>
> /Larry
IETF does have a patent policy. It is at RFC 3979. It may no
Take a look at Section 5.4 of RFC 1602, which redefined
the IETF's IP process originally set forth in RFC 1310:
5.4. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the wide
disseminat
Larry,
Please note that any responses to your question "Are any of these encryption
algorithms patented?" are being provided by individuals in the spirit of
helpfulness and open sharing of information. Neither IETF nor the IETF Trust
provide assurances or advice as to whether or not technology
> Ted, jumping ahead a little bit, how much of your concern would
> be eliminated if that entry in the template said "Royalty Free
> and RAND" (or "RAND and Royalty Free"), rather than just RF? I
> agree that "RF and totally unreasonable" is a possible case, but
> am trying to understand whethe
34 matches
Mail list logo
