Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Rights in Contributions' to BCP

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:15:48 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, C. M. Heard wrote (off-line):
> With regard to the following [last call comments on
> <draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06.txt>]: do you
> want me to propose specific text?

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Scott Bradner replied (off-line):
> sure

After struggling with this for a couple of days, I have to admit
that it's not clear to me exactly what to do, because I've been
only a fringe participant in the WG and have an imperfect
understanding of the _intent_ of the document.  So I now have to
ask for some clarification.

Regarding this:
> First, in Section 5.4, "Copyright Notice (required for all IETF
> Documents)", it says:
> 
>    (Normally placed at the end of the IETF Document.)
> 
>       "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year). This document is
>       subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in RFC
>       XXXX and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
>       rights."
> 
>    [note to the RFC Editor - XXXX above to be replaced with the number
>    of this document]
> 
>    Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents
>    except in the case where the document is the product of a joint
>    development effort between the IETF and another standards development
>    organization.  Such exceptions must be approved on an individual
>    basis by the IAB.

Just to make sure that I have not misinterpreted what's being said
here, my understanding is that it will change the rules set forth in
RFC 2026 10.4(C) in the following two ways, once
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights is published as RFC XXXX:

(a) all IETF Internet-Drafts and all RFCs published from them will
not contain the full copyright statement from RFC 2026 10.4(C) but
rather will contain the shorter notice shown above;

(b) the requirement to include this notice applies to _all_ IETF
Documents, not just "standards-related documentation" (to use the
phrase from RFC 2026).

I also understand that this section does not NOT apply to RFC Editor
documents and that draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights is deliberately
silent about requirements for copyright notices in such documents.

> It seems to me that this does not adequately cover the cases where a
> proprietary specification or a standard that is the product of
> another SDO is being republished in an informational RFC.  In many
> if not most such cases the RFC will require a copyright notice that
> does not grant the right to create derivative works (or, as per the
> second comment below, grants only very limited rights).  Note that
> such a variant copyright (without the right to produce derivative
> works) has appeared in many such works in the past (RFC 3394 being
> the most recent one that I could find).  Also, it seems to me
> unreasonable that the copyright notice in such an RFC could not
> (even with IAB approval) mention the organization that originally
> produced the specification that is being republished and that
> retains change control over it.

The problem, I think, may be in the term "IETF Documents", which
according to the submission-rights draft are any documents other
than RFC Editor documents.  It seems that its scope includes a draft
intended for publication as an Informational RFC that contains a
standard developed by another SDO if that draft is submitted to a
working group, rather than directly to the RFC Editor.  An example
of such is <draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt>.  It seems odd that
there should be different requirements that depend on the submission
route rather than the content and purpose of the document.  (I
assume here that there is no intent to change the current "running
code" policy that allows for for such documents a full copyright
statement that permits translations into other languages but not
other forms of derivative works ... see RFC 3394 for an example.)

I'm not sure if the correct way to fix this is to tinker with the
"(required for all IETF Documents)" language in Section 5.4, or if
the definition of "IETF Contributions" needs to be revised to
exclude drafts containing external specifications that are intended
just to republish those specs as Information or Experimental RFCs,
even if said drafts are not submitted directly to the RFC Editor.

> The second issue has specifically to do with MIB or PIB modules that
> are included an informational RFC of this sort ... the
> IEEE8021-PAE-MIB in draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt being an example.
> Now, Section 5.2 (entitled "Derivative Works Limitation") says what
> needs to be done in an Internet-Draft if a contributor wants to
> disallow derivative works except for extraction of a MIB or PIB
> module:
> 
>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right to make
>    modifications and derivative works of an Contribution (other than
>    translations), one of the two the following notices may be included
>    in the Status of memo section of an Internet-Draft and included in a
>    published RFC:
> 
>    a. "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
>       not be created, except to publish it as a RFC and to translate it
>       into languages other than English."
> 
>    b. "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
>       not be created."
> 
>    In the cases of MIB or PIB modules and in other cases where the
>    Contribution includes material that is meant to be extracted in order
>    to be used, the following should be appended to statement 5.2 (a) or
>    5.2 (b):
> 
>       "other than to extract section XX as-is for separate use."
> 
>    Notice 5.2(a) is used if the Contributor intends for the Contribution
>    to be published as a RFC.  Notice 5.2(b) is used along with the
>    Publication Limitation in Section 5.3 when the Contributor does not
>    intend for the Contribution to be published as a RFC.
> 
> So far, so good.  For draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt notice 5.2 (a)
> with the extra statement appended would probably be appropriate.
> However, the extra statement would need to need to find its way into
> the Full Copyright Statement in the published RFC, and I didn't see
> a mechanism in the submission-rights draft for this to happen.

The same comments as above apply here.

> A third issue is that the abbreviated notice for MIB and PIB modules
> in Section 5.6 does not seem to seem to be entirely appropriate for
> a MIB or PIB module for which the IETF does not own change control.
> The submission-rights draft says:
> 
>    a. in MIB modules, PIB modules and similar material commonly
>       extracted from IETF Documents, except for material that is being
>       placed under IANA maintenance, the following abbreviated notice
>       shall be included in the body of the material that will be
>       extracted in lieu of the notices otherwise required by Section 5:
> 
>          "Copyright (C) <year> The Internet Society.  This version of
>          this MIB module is part of RFC XXXX;  see the RFC itself for
>          full legal notices."
> 
> Specifically, it does not seem reasonable to me to require mention of
> ISOC but not to allow mention of the organization that originally
> produced the MIB module and that retains change control over it.  In
> fact, I would think that the nature of the copyright notice in the MIB
> module (and even whether there is one) should probably be determined
> by the party that is granting permission to republish it;  after all,
> the abbreviated copyright notice covers a derivative work (the
> extracted MIB module), not the RFC from which it was extracted.

And here too.

Mike Heard

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:40:35 -0400 (EDT)

> draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights is published as RFC XXXX:

yes, but it does not change teh ways we have been doing things see:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/MIB-COPYRIGHT.txt

> silent about requirements for copyright notices in such documents.

the RFC Editor will make their own rules about their documents

> even if said drafts are not submitted directly to the RFC Editor.

I expect that is not the way to deal with it - I would suggest 
expanding the language in Sec 5.4 
   Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents
   except in the case where the document is the product of a joint
   development effort between the IETF and another standards development
   organization.  Such exceptions must be approved on an individual   
   basis by the IAB.

1/ there needs to be an ISOC copyright on all RFC Editor-published docs
   since the IETF/ISOC has a licence from teh authors (including the
   other stds org if there is one) to publish the material and that
   publishing has a copyright on it

2/ but if the material is a republishing of some other stds organization's
   material they also have a copyright on the material

3/ but we do not want any random person to insist that they have their
   own copyright statement on a doc juts because they maintain rights

I would suggest that we just expand the text to say:

   Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents
   except in the case where the document is the product of a joint
   development effort between the IETF and another standards development
   organization or the document is a republication of the work of another
   standards organization.  Such exceptions must be approved on an 
   individual basis by the IAB.

Scott

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:59:07 -0700 (PDT)

> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/MIB-COPYRIGHT.txt

I was referring to Section 5.4 of draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights
when I said "what's being said here".  That section does not talk
about MIB copyrights.

I am sorry to be repetitious, but it seems that I've failed to
communicate the points that I am concerned.  So please let me
try again.  What I said was that Section 5.4 of
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights changes the the rules set forth
in RFC 2026 10.4(C) as follows:

(a) all IETF Internet-Drafts and all RFCs published from them will
not contain the full copyright statement from RFC 2026 10.4(C) but
rather will contain the shorter notice shown in Section 5.4 of
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights;

(b) the requirement to include this notice now applies to _all_ IETF
Documents, not just "standards-related documentation" (to use the
phrase from RFC 2026).

Item (a) changes the wording of the full copyright statement from
what was in RFC 2026 10.4(C) but does not (as far as I can tell)
change the substance.  I'll assume for the purposes of this
discussion that the notice in Section 5.4 of
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights is equivalent to that in RFC 2026
10.4(C).

Item (b) is the thing I'm concerned with.  It changes the scope from
"all ISOC standards-related documentation" to "all IETF Documents".
It sure seems to me that this is a change from "running code".  As
I've understood it, the term "ISOC standards-related documentation"
wasn't intended to include standards developed by other
organizations that are published as Informational RFCs.  In actual
practice, such documents have _not_ contained the full full
copyright statement from RFC 2026 10.4(C), but have contained a
variant copyright that excludes the right to make derivative works
other than translations;  see RFC 3394 for an example.  However, if
such a document is submitted via a working group, it seems that
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights now requires it to have a copyright
notice that permits making derivative works for the purpose of
developing Internet standards.  That is what I was complaining
about.  I think it's a bug, and I think it needs to be fixed.

> the RFC Editor will make their own rules about their documents

Good, then I understood that part correctly.

>    individual basis by the IAB.

The problem is that this only mentions "additional copyright
notices" and makes no allowance for a _different_ copyright notice
that excludes the right to make derivative works (other than
translations).  That's fine for jointly-developed standards but not
for republications.

One other point ... it would seem quite odd to me for different
copyright rules to apply to documents that are republication of the
work of another standards organization based on whether the document
was submitted directly to the RFC Editor (so that it is an RFC
Editor Document) or via an IETF working group (so that it is an IETF
Document).  Currently the RFC Editor rule (per
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt) is:

      A specific request from the IAB is required before the RFC
      Editor can include a dual copyright, or for any other
      variation of the standard ISOC copyright notice.

which has the requisite flexibility.

I suppose one way out (without having potentially different rules
depending on submission route) is to require that documents which
republish the work of another standards organization be submitted as
RFC Editor Contributions, rather than via an IETF WG.  Maybe that's
the de-facto practice already and the bridge-mib WG is breaking new
ground in attempting to republish the IEEE 802.11X MIB by submitting
it as a WG draft (currently draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt).  I
don't know;  does anyone else?

Mike

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 21:18:13 -0400 (EDT)

> draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights;

yes, the chage is to permit a chorter copyright notice - that does not 
seem to me to be a chaneg of substance

> Documents, not just "standards-related documentation" (to use the

see all RFCs since RFC 2156 - the copyright notice has been in all RFCs
so this not a change 

> about.  I think it's a bug, and I think it needs to be fixed.

see ipr-submission-rights sec 5.2 - that describes a way
for the author to say "no derivative works"

sorry but I do not understand what the issue is - it seems to me that
the draft (with the addition I suggested) already provides all the
functions you say are needed

Scott

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 19:40:26 -0700 (PDT)

> see all RFCs since RFC 2156 - the copyright notice has been in all RFCs

That's not correct.  Certain Informational RFCs after 2156 that
republish work from other organizations have a copyright notice
that's not a verbatim copy of RFC 2026 10.4 (C).  See, for example
2985, 2986, and 3394.  The full copyright notice in 3394 says

 However, this document itself may not be modified in any way,
 such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
 Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as
 required to translate it into languages other than English.

Note the absence of the words to permit derivative works that are
part of the notice in RFC 2026 10.4 (C).

> for the author to say "no derivative works"

But even with the addition that you suggested there is no provision
for getting that into the copyright notice.  At least I could find
no words in sec. 5.4 to permit that.

Mike

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT)

> part of the notice in RFC 2026 10.4 (C).

yes - that was started when we got some RFCs where derivative works
rights were withheald  - sorry if I misunderstood your point - I thought
you were saying that there was not a ISOC copyright in all RFCs

> no words in sec. 5.4 to permit that.

I do not see a need to put it into the new terse copyright notice 
(which does not talk about derivative works) since the "no derivative 
works" notice would be in the RFC itself - the new terse copyright note
specifically calls out "except as set forth therein" to cover that case

Scott

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 21:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

> specifically calls out "except as set forth therein" to cover that case

Ah, I stand corrected.  I see that sec. 5.2 does say that the
publication limitation would appear in the published RFC.  Currently
it appears only in the I-D boilerplate, which is stripped off prior
to RFC publication.

I note, however, that sec. 5.1 is not consistent with this as it
says: 

   b. The Derivative Works Limitation described in Section 5.2 (for
      specific types of Internet-Drafts only).

This should be corrected ... maybe s/Internet-Drafts/Contributions/?

Mike

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:52:30 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> that it's not clear to me exactly what to do

My thanks to Scott for his clarifications.  I'm now OK with his
suggestion fixing sec. 5.4.  Assuming that sec. 5(b) is corrected
so that it doesn't contradict sec. 5.2 by limiting the scope of the
Derivative Works Limitation to Internet-Drafts, the only remaining
issue is in Section 5.6(a).  I'd suggest adding something along the
following lines at the end of 5.6(a):

   Variations of these abbreviated notices are not permitted except in
   cases where the material to be extracted is the product of a joint
   development effort between the IETF and another standards development
   organization or is a republication of the work of another standards
   organization.  Such variations must be approved on an individual
   basis by the IAB.

Mike Heard

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 07:54:44 -0400 (EDT)

> This should be corrected ... maybe s/Internet-Drafts/Contributions/?

I don't think that "Contributions" is right - maybe "RFCs" but I will
fix it somehow

Scott

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:01:24 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Scott  Bradner wrote:
> > I note, however, that sec. [5] is not consistent with this as it
> > says: 
> > 

Since it applies to certain Internet-Drafts and the RFCs published
from them, probably the right way to fix this is:

s/Internet-Drafts/IETF Documents/

//cmh