Subject: RE: Copying and licensing....Re: Copying conditions

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:48:10 -0500

>So would it be OK for an I-D author to say something like this:
>
>  In addition to the license given to the IETF, the author declares that
>  Copying and distribution of the work, with or without
>  modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty
>  provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved

Harald,

I suggest that such a statement be put in an IP 
disclosure statement, just
as though a patent owner were telling the community that it
intends to license its patents on an RF basis.  Putting such
statements in the I-D could become very confusing.

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:01 AM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Copying and licensing....Re: Copying conditions

This may be hopelessly amateur-lawyerish, but....

is there a reason why the text says "multiple.... copyright statements", 
and does not say "multiple..... licensing statements"?

I get a headache from the discussion of copyright notices, but the 
IMPORTANT part of the statement that Simon wants to add is his license 
terms, not his copyright statement.

And what the IETF cares about is that the IETF rights should not be 
*restricted*.

So would it be OK for an I-D author to say something like this:

  In addition to the license given to the IETF, the author declares that
  Copying and distribution of the work, with or without
  modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty
  provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved

Or does that make no sense?
(I see lots of corner cases, like the case where portions of the RFC are 
quotes from another RFC that doesn't have such a clause - the "no 
sublicensing" stuff Jorge mentions applies here. But in theory....)

                  Harald

--On 8. januar 2005 05:04 -0500 Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>           Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Simon Josefsso
>>
>>           Copying and distribution of the work, with or without
>>           modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty
>>           provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> I see no problem with this in an RFC, and I don't see it as
>> conflicting with the ISOC copyright statement. Thoughts?
>
> multiple, potentially conflicting, copyright statements are a problem and
> are currently not permitted
>
> see RFC 3667 section 5.4
>
> Scott
>
>

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

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:54:51 -0500 (EST)

I like this approach

---
>From [email-masked]  Mon Jan 10 11:48:19 2005
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Copying and licensing....Re: Copying conditions
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:48:10 -0500
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>,
	"Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>

>  In addition to the license given to the IETF, the author declares =
that

Harald,

I suggest that such a statement be put in an IP=20

Jorge

-----Original Message-----

is there a reason why the text says "multiple.... copyright statements", =

I get a headache from the discussion of copyright notices, but the=20
IMPORTANT part of the statement that Simon wants to add is his license=20
terms, not his copyright statement.

And what the IETF cares about is that the IETF rights should not be=20
*restricted*.

Or does that make no sense?
(I see lots of corner cases, like the case where portions of the RFC are =

quotes from another RFC that doesn't have such a clause - the "no=20
sublicensing" stuff Jorge mentions applies here. But in theory....)

                  Harald

--On 8. januar 2005 05:04 -0500 Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>           provided the copyright notice and this notice are =
preserved.
> multiple, potentially conflicting, copyright statements are a problem =
and

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:57:30 -0500

>>>>> "Contreras," == Contreras, Jorge <[email-masked]> writes:

    Contreras,> Harald,

    Contreras,> I suggest that such a statement be put in an IP
    Contreras,> disclosure statement, just as though a patent owner
    Contreras,> were telling the community that it intends to license
    Contreras,> its patents on an RF basis.  Putting such statements
    Contreras,> in the I-D could become very confusing.

I think that this does need to belong in the ID when possible although
if there are legal reasons this would be problematic I'd be delighted
to listen to them.

It will make it difficult for people to evaluate the licensing terms
if they are scattered all over the place.  Mor over, it is desirable
to be able to look at a single document and conclude that you do in
fact have the necessary rights to use it as you plan.  That's simply
not possible for patents.  However for copyright it seems reasonable.
Here are some differences that I found useful when coming to this conclusion:

* Copyright, unlike patent claims, is unlikely to be asserted by a
  third party.  If copyright is asserted by a third party, we may well
  find we are not in a position to distribute the RFC at all.

* We want to avoid evaluating the validity of patent or trademark
  claims.  For the most part we can presumptively assume that the authors of a draft do have copyright on that draft without creating a problem.

--Sam