--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 18:02:16 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the current text clearly implies that tools created
for the IASA by a contractor, and data collected for the IASA by a
contractor shall be openly available.
I think the IETF needs the power
on 2004-12-03 9:25 am Harald Tveit Alvestrand said the following:
--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 18:02:16 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the current text clearly implies that tools created
for the IASA by a contractor, and data collected for the IASA by
Carl Malamud wrote:
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any IASA-related or
IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in any way by ISOC from the IETF.
I suggest inserting the word irrevocable before the word right. That
covers us
in the
--On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about this text, (added to 2.2.6):
As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure that any
contracts for IASA clearly designate that any software, databases,
and websites developed
Folks,
Good stuff here, but...
I'd like to put in a plug for making it a mandatory* principle
that the IETF end up in no-restrictions possession of data contents from
the databases and websites from any contractors.
This is different from specifics about what tools are used, open source
etc,
Inline, personal opinion
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:34
To: Henrik Levkowetz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Carl Malamud; Scott Bradner
Subject: Re: Adminrest: created IPR
: Adminrest: created IPR
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:30:12 +0100
Inline, personal opinion
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:34
To: Henrik Levkowetz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Carl Malamud
Hang on... are we not getting too detailed again, at the
risk of over-constraining ourselves?
As has been mentioned on this thread -- we (IETF) may well want
to take advantage of non-open-source software, if it's the
most effective efficient choice. I'm thinking specifically
of contracting with
No, I think that as a principle that prevents us from inadvertently
or short-sightedly putting ourself into a locked-in position vis-a-vis
a contractor, this kind of statement of principle is exactly what
we need.
Henrik
on 2004-12-03 5:45 pm Leslie Daigle said the following:
Hang on...
Henrik,
I believe that's true of the principle, expressed this way:
[I wrote:]
Taking the step back -- the principle was that the IETF should
retain the rights to, ability to access, and ability to move
the data it creates.Period.
I (still) believe that the text that was proposed (detailing
Hi Leslie,
on 2004-12-03 6:19 pm Leslie Daigle said the following:
Henrik,
I believe that's true of the principle, expressed this way:
[I wrote:]
Taking the step back -- the principle was that the IETF should
retain the rights to, ability to access, and ability to move
the data it
The specific term is work for hire. All data, created software, etc must
be considered the result of work for hire and as such is the property of
ISOC in trust for the IETF.
At 08:58 AM 12/3/2004, Allison Mankin wrote:
Folks,
Good stuff here, but...
I'd like to put in a plug for making it a
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald this works for me (my only problem is stylistic - it's
Harald somewhat long for a principle, so may fit better in the
Harald details sections, if a place can be found for it).
I like the spirit of this as well. I
The specific term is work for hire. All data, created software, etc must
be considered the result of work for hire and as such is the property of
ISOC in trust for the IETF.
I agree, and would simply add whenever possible. Remember, this is
not the contract, it is guidance to the folks
While I support the use of open source software whenever possible, it
seems too restrictive to mandate it in the BCP on the IASA operation.
I am not even sure that this level of detail belongs in this doc at
all, though it may belong in a set of recommendations to the IAOC.
a.
On 3 dec 2004,
Scott Bradner wrote:
the new draft asks:
Do we need wording about the ownership of IETF tools and data? We
have some text (in Section 2.2) about IPR, but does that fully
cover tools and data?
fwiw - my intention in the text that is now 2.2(6) was to cover the
tools and data
on 2004-12-02 9:58 am Brian E Carpenter said the following:
Scott Bradner wrote:
the new draft asks:
Do we need wording about the ownership of IETF tools and data? We
have some text (in Section 2.2) about IPR, but does that fully
cover tools and data?
fwiw - my intention
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any IASA-related
or
IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in any way by ISOC from the IETF.
You could simply append:
As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure that any contracts
for
Carl suggests:
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in
any way by ISOC from the IETF.
You could simply append:
As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure
Scott -
I did postfix whenever possible and prefix as a matter of
principle ... this simply says if you're not going to do it
that way, please have a reason.
Regards,
Carl
Carl suggests:
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
the new draft asks:
Do we need wording about the ownership of IETF tools and data? We
have some text (in Section 2.2) about IPR, but does that fully
cover tools and data?
fwiw - my intention in the text that is now 2.2(6) was to cover the
tools and data
Scott
21 matches
Mail list logo
