At 13:13 09/01/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>On 2009-01-09 13:59, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> +1 to fred's proposal, let the exceptions be just that and don't bother
>> most I-D authors,
>> Stephen.
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>> You asked me to make this comment publicl
On Jan 9, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
At 13:13 09/01/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-01-09 13:59, Stephen Farrell wrote:
+1 to fred's proposal, let the exceptions be just that and don't
bother
most I-D authors,
Stephen.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Fred Baker wrote:
You ask
Martin Duerst writes:
> WHO exactly are we supposed to get permissions from.
> The situation of a deceased author is a tought one, but it's an
> obvious one. But I haven't seen any clear answer to whether
> permission from all the authors/editors (the people listed in
> the front of the document
On Jan 9, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Martin Duerst writes:
WHO exactly are we supposed to get permissions from.
The situation of a deceased author is a tought one, but it's an
obvious one. But I haven't seen any clear answer to whether
permission from all the authors/editors
--On Friday, January 09, 2009 10:16 -0500 Thomas Narten
wrote:
> Martin Duerst writes:
>
>> WHO exactly are we supposed to get permissions from.
>
>> The situation of a deceased author is a tought one, but it's
>> an obvious one. But I haven't seen any clear answer to whether
>> permission f
kiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> John Leslie
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:15 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc:
At 11:09 AM -0800 1/9/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>We should accept the notion that IETF, and
>now the IETF Trust, as a public interest corporation that manages the
>expressive creative activities through which these joint works are written,
>is the joint owner of copyright in every RFC. As such, a l
/Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:har...@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 11:42 AM
> To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
> reviewand comments on a proposed Wo
At 12:34 PM -0800 1/9/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>Ted Hardie asked me:
>> Are you willing to personally indemnify the individuals who are later
>> sued by those who don't hold this view or are you willing to pay for
>> the appropriate insurance cover?
>
>Of course not. Are you (or your company) warn
--On Friday, January 09, 2009 11:42 -0800 Ted Hardie
wrote:
>...
> My reading of John's point is that this creates either a
> coordination burden or a legal risk for the authors re-using
> text created prior to the new rules. He doesn't want to bear
> that burden/risk, and I don't think the Tru
John,
On 2009-01-10 10:32, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> And note that makes a clear and plausible transition model:
>
> (1) Pre-5378 documents exist under pre-5378 rules, so
> any potential user for non-traditional purposes needs to
> either figure out who the relevant authors ar
enlaw.com; 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
> reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
>
>
> --On Friday, January 09, 2009 11:42 -0800 Ted Hardie
> wrote:
>
> >...
> > My
I've tried really hard to stay out of this whole IPR mess - there are only
so many hours in the day - but the point John makes here is so vital I simply
have to chime in and support it.
> ...
> Now, what I recommend is that we try to see if we can agree that
> the three-stage description above i
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
This is EXACTLY the approach we should be using: Formulate a set of goals, get
agreement on them, and only then ask the laywers to turn that informal
specification into competent legalese.
...
The difference was like night and day.
+1
That matches my expe
--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the
> viable options. My draft implicitly adds
>
> (2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378
> materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are
My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant
problem. Document transfer outside the IETF is sufficiently rare that I
would agree with Fred that not solving that is fine.
This also means that from my personal perspective, a solution that says
(loosely based on a suggestion
--On Friday, January 09, 2009 15:25 -0800 Dave CROCKER
wrote:
> ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>> This is EXACTLY the approach we should be using: Formulate a
>> set of goals, get agreement on them, and only then ask the
>> laywers to turn that informal specification into competent
>> legale
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 06:52:40PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant
> problem. Document transfer outside the IETF is sufficiently rare that I
> would agree with Fred that not solving that is fine.
If it really is the case that th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it personally
> or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right in
> any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your peac
"Joel M. Halpern" writes:
> My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant
> problem.
My interpretation has been that the problem has been (and remain) that
the license on IETF documents is incompatible with free software
licensing, which is counter-productive for the IETF.
>
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:37:50PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > We do have precedent for include code that has explicit open source
> > licensing rights. For example, the MD5 implementation in RFC 1321 has
> > an explicit BSD-style license.
>
> Sure, but under the post-RFC 2026 rules that wo
turday, January 10, 2009 3:16 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
> reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrenc
+1
It seems to me that we are spending a great deal of energy on
non-problems (including the one Ted discusses below) and too
little time on real issues... like how to encourage people to do
real work around here (where requiring authors try to figure out
who might have contributed parts of a docu
Ted,
On 2009-01-11 08:10, Theodore Tso wrote:
...
> If the
> goal is to allow code to be allowed in Open Source Software, then
> requiring a maximally compatible OSS license for code makes sense.
> But requiring for random protocol text, especially if this is going to
> make reuse of older RFC's
--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:17 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
wrote:
>...
> For the lawyers on here, I'm hoping that silence now,
> particularly by the major IETF contributors on this list, will
> be interpreted as laches or waiver if one of them later claims
> an exclusive copyright interest in
sorry - not waiving those rights to you or anyone else.
--bill
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Manning [mailto:bmann...@isi.edu]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 3:16 AM
> > To: Lawrence Rosen
> > Cc: '
Theodore Tso writes:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:37:50PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > We do have precedent for include code that has explicit open source
>> > licensing rights. For example, the MD5 implementation in RFC 1321 has
>> > an explicit BSD-style license.
>>
>> Sure, but under t
Let's be quite clear here.
Your stated requirement for doing this was that authors had to be able
to take and modify any text from anywhere in an RFC.
The Working Group concluded that while that was reasonable relative to
code (and we tried to give the open source community that ability
relativ
--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:28 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
wrote:
> Also, it should be understood that this issue is largely
> orthogonal to the topic under discussion. The working group
> could have included what Simon asked for in 5377. The rough
> consensus of the WG was not to do so. A
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:09:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I would agree with you for the 2-3 sentences scenario, but that's
> missing my point. I would fully disagree when it comes to 2-3
> paragraphs, 2-3 pages, or entire I-D's. I believe the latter is the
> reality with several free so
Of
John Leslie
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:15 AM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Dave CROCKER wrote:
A number of the comments, so far, appea
"Joel M. Halpern" writes:
> Let's be quite clear here.
> Your stated requirement for doing this was that authors had to be able
> to take and modify any text from anywhere in an RFC.
No, that's a different issue. Being able (as RFC author) to include
code not written by IETF contributors is dif
Theodore Tso writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:09:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I would agree with you for the 2-3 sentences scenario, but that's
>> missing my point. I would fully disagree when it comes to 2-3
>> paragraphs, 2-3 pages, or entire I-D's. I believe the latter is the
>>
So what I hear (and for the benefit of others, let me note that you
and I have ha a fairly detailed discussion privately that I think I am
summarizing the result of) is that you want a short term solution and
a long term solution. The short term solution would be adequately
solved by using
Rescorla
Sent: January 12, 2009 6:17 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: trust...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Ed,
I'd like to thank the Trustees for working to resolve this
situ
At Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:27:02 -0500,
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
>
> Eric, Thank You for your comments and for your suggestions (below)
>
> I like your proposal for how to clarify and improve the wording of the draft
> legend text.
Thanks.
Can you advise as to when the community can expect to see a re
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
