Subject: Why the IETF needs the right to let third parties make derivative works

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:48:58 -0500

I see two related issues on the copyright front.  First, what rights
should the IETF require from authors.  Second, what rights should the
IETF grant to third parties.  The second must be a subset (although
perhaps not a proper subset) of the first.

I'd like to focus on the first issue for a moment.  Currently the IETF
does not have the right to grant third parties the non-exclusive right
to create derivative works.

I think this is a serious problem even if we don't decide to do
something like what Simon asks and create open-source compatible
copyrights.

Currently the procedure is fairly complicated if we find an error in
our IPR policies.  This is not a theoretical concern: we've found that
we don't give enough rights to quote RFCs in manuals and it is unclear
that we give rights to extract ASN.1 modules for people outside the
IETF process.  Regardless of whether we eventually decide these issues
are bugs, we have been reminded of our fallibility.  It seems
interesting to ask ourselves what happens if we do decide to change
the policy.

let's say that we publish RFC 4067 which expands the rights we require
from authors and changes or expands the rights we grant to third
parties.

What's the status of all the internet-drafts in the system and all the
RFCs.  Well, some of them are RFC 2026, some are RFC 3667 and some are
RFC 4067.

If I write new text it is clearly RFC 4067.

But one of the rights we have always had is the right to use previous
standards in new standards.  However we do not have the right to grant
permissions in excess of those we actually have ourselves.  RFC 3667
is careful to only reserve the minimum permissions we need.

So, I decide to update RFC 3932.  I take the old text and replace a
significant chunk of it.  I then prepare to go submit the internet
draft and am faced with boiler plate that wants me to assert that I'm
giving the IETF all the rights required by RFC 4067.

I can't do that.  I don't have those rights: I'm not the original
author of 3932.  In the case of 3932 I could probably contact the
original author and get the appropriate permissions but that is not
generally true.

One option is to decide that unless I get these permissions I cannot
make a derivative work of an RFC 3667-copyright standard.  That seems
highly undesirable.

The other option is to keep track of which rights I have.  I submit
with a boilerplate that indicates I am using both RFC 3667 and 4067
text.  It is probably desirable to list what sources of 3667 text I
have so that if those sources are later upgraded to 4067, I can
upgrade my entire document to pure 4067.

In effect I need to keep track of one bit of state (3667/4067) for
each source of significant text going into my draft.  that's painful.

Imagine if we later expand our permissions again.  That's right, two
bits per source.  My head hurts; powersets are a sign you're doing
something very wrong.

Let's fix the permissions we grant ourselves once and for all.  We
need to divorce our policies for what we allow others to do from our
policies about what rights we require.  The policies about what rights
we grant others will evolve over time.  However I think we can require
full non-exclusive permission to make derivative works and to allow
others to do the same now.  Whether we use that permission will be a
matter for BCP and endless debate.  But at least we can limit the pain
that debate will cause.

--Sam

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:56:21 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: Why the IETF needs the right to let third parties make derivative
works

> should the IETF require from authors.

i.e. you mean that are different ones from those that the first 4000 RFC's
are done under, right?

> Second, what rights should the

Again - that would be different than those of the first 4000 RFC's?

> to create derivative works.

Currently its worse than that. (SOAPBOX) If the IETF cannot show that the
person submitting the document for consideration actually has the legal
right to do that, then no matter what the IETF codifies with that
unempowered individual, the submittal is what it is, fraudulently submitted,
making the IETF's use, or the submittors use fruit of a poisoned tree.

> something like what Simon asks and create open-source compatible

I agree - but the history is what it is, and it set a precedent of 4000 or
so that says that a standard already exists.

> interesting to ask ourselves what happens if we do decide to change

I guess the real issue is whether the IETF has a right to change its process
at this time, but no one here probably wants to hear that.

> from authors and changes or expands the rights we grant to third

Hmmmm-

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:36:39 -0500

>>>>> "todd" == todd glassey <[email-masked]> writes:

    todd> Currently its worse than that. (SOAPBOX) If the IETF cannot
    todd> show that the person submitting the document for
    todd> consideration actually has the legal right to do that, then

I had the feeling you might pipe up.  While I understand you feel
strongly about this issue, the chair has already suggested how you
should move forward on your concern.

I'm concerned that it may take you a long time to accomplish that goal
and to gain the necessary support.

I'd prefer for the working group not to bind the consideration of the
issue that I brought up to your issue.

Thanks,

--Sam

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:07:44 -0800

No Sam - The chair has suggested a method that assures no further direction
could possibly be done on this matter. Its the Chair's method of blowing me
into the weeds... Its what the management of this team has done to me
personally on every major suggestion made herein - They have gone as far as
to manufacture claims based on the flow of their email servers, as to when I
sent commentary out such that I have been one of the few if not only person
banned from participating. This is censorship in the management of what
enters the formal list record. But that's a different story.

---

The issue here is simple - in moving forward, the IETF has set a contractual
standard based on the services it performs for people that have legal rights
to submit documents.  You see, that contract is long established and there
are almost 4000 pieces of specific and non-refutable evidence which have
been processed by the structure and framework that the contract erected. All
of which clearly testify as to the truth of this assertion.

So to make up for this lack of vision in the process, IPR-WG wants to alter
that contract, and to do so without the approval of the entire membership of
the IETF, or those whose published documents will not meet the new terms,
and who's standards or RFC's status could become endangered because of this.
The problem is that the rest of the IETF does not see or is not involved in
this major change to their own environment. This is the flaw - that only a
single WG could alter or modify on its own without groupwide approval, a
groupwide process agreement.

One key question to ask is  "Why is this restructuring necessary?" - my
answer is simple... because the founders screwed up - they didn't see this
coming... this saturation of Internet Protocols after 20-30 years of
development. So now what we are looking at is a world where the realm of
technology is much more congested than it was when the altruistic founders
of the IETF set up a process and a method to get as many protocols into
existence as possible as quickly as possible.

In this case, 20-30 years into its existence, within the IETF itself and its
brethren its the sheer number of protocols for doing anything. Seriously,
the problem is that now, all the cool basic ways of doing things are known
and so... we get to the point where the IETF's participants change from
individuals and university staff predominantly to commercially funded
participants, who because of their commercial sponsors have become more
concerned about the IP rights and their reproduction and derivative rights.

All makes sense, being that the world is changing. But the IETF then has a
responsibility to evolve its processes in a manner that does not damage or
set aside what its already done. It also needs to address flaws in the
charters or processes such that the IETF is not actually doing what the
charters or process control documents allude to (sorry about the Audit
Jargon there).

So now where are we today? My description of the IETF's IPR WG is that it is
like "Trying to get a herd of very brilliant cats to all walk in the same
direction?" - seems like a good analogy. meow... So then what are the
goals??? - "Clean submission of IP for republication to the IETF", "Clean
descriptions of the Submission Conveyance itself, what happens when the IP
is conveyed to the IETF and who actually owns it. i.e the How is it
published?, Whether "it" can it be withdrawn from official publication and
if so how and why? And what the other practitioners within the IETF can
expect. Can they sublicense? - what about derivative works?, & does this
mean to the IETF only or to the World beyond it? (i.e. do I have to be a
participant in the IETF process to gain the benefit of the IETF's
relicensing capabilities?

What did I miss there? OpenSource vs. Proprietary Standards? They BOTH
should pass through the standards process framework with no problems if this
IETF is half as smart as it thinks it is.

That means that the IETF in my estimation needs to allow any number of
process releases and  licenses to work for its filers. Meaning that the most
important part of the IETF reform is in creating a level-playing field such
that each standards process and effort is comparable to each other and that
all of the words in the RFC's constraining the operations of the IETF are in
fact in operations and functional, something that is simply not true today.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Why the IETF needs the right to let third parties make
derivative works