Subject: An example of the outbound rights problem

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:22:25 -0400

Hi, folks.  I'm not currently following the IPR working group, but I
wanted to share a real world problem with the group as it illustrates
some of the outbound rights issues.

Some fine folks wanted to add support for RFC 4559 to Mozilla.  That's
not an IETF document but does rely on a lot of IETF technology
including RFC 2743 and 2744.

RFC 2744 specifies a header file that they wanted to use.  They were
unable because of the IETF copyright and because the IETF copyright
did not meet Mozilla's license needs.

Fortunately there was a work around: the authors of RFC 1509 (a
previous version of RFC 2744) had donated their header to MIT for
inclusion in MIT Kerberos.  MIT had tried to keep this header in
approximate sync with RFC 2744 and it was close enough to be useful to
Mozilla.

I include information I received from the  authors of the patch:

>This bugzilla bug shows some of Mozilla discussions about how to include
>gssapi.h as part of their distro.  The RFC Copyright was too strict so the
>Mozilla organization stated they couldn't use the RFC version of the header
>definitions and had to use a version from the MIT source code instead.

>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280792#c55

My personal opinion is that we, the IETF, definitely want Mozilla and
similar organizations to be able to pick up their technology.

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:09:40 -0500

Sam,

you are referring to Appendix A of RFC 2744?

I believe the current content of the -outbound draft is clear that the 
result you want is what the WG is directing the IETF Trust to achieve.

If, upon reading the -outbound draft, you think this is not clear, please 
suggest how to make it clearer.

                  Harald

--On 24. juli 2007 10:22 -0400 Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> gssapi.h as part of their distro.  The RFC Copyright was too strict so
>> the Mozilla organization stated they couldn't use the RFC version of the
>> header definitions and had to use a version from the MIT source code
>> instead.
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:43:14 +0200

I believe there are two problems in outbound-03 that makes this unclear:

* outbound-03 should mention header files explicitly in the list of
  code-like stuff.

* outbound-03 suggests that the trust shouldn't embark on a massive
  effort to re-license older RFCs:

    Similarly, the rights granted for pre-existing documents can not be
    expanded unless the holders of rights in those contributions choose
    to grant expanded rights.  Nonetheless, to the degree it can, and
    without embarking on a massive effort, it is desirable if similar
    rights to those described below can be granted in older RFCs.

  I suggest dropping ', and without embarking on a massive effort'.  If
  that part is missing, it doesn't imply the IETF Trust _should_ embark
  on a massive effort to do this.  But they can do so easily if they
  want to.

  Btw, haven't the Trust already embarked on this effort?  I recall
  seeing some e-mails about assigning old RFCs to the IETF Trust.

/Simon

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> If, upon reading the -outbound draft, you think this is not clear,
> please suggest how to make it clearer.
>
>                  Harald
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:07:30 +0200

>   seeing some e-mails about assigning old RFCs to the IETF Trust.

I don't know the general answer since I'm no longer a Trustee, but
I can tell you that IBM signed the "RFC DOCUMENTS NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE"
at corporate level, which covers all the old RFCs with IBM (co)authors.
I guess anyone who wants to sign it should contact the IAD, Ray Pelletier.

     Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:20:37 -0400

I have no objection to mentioning header files in the code 
description.  I had intended to include ASN.1, as I believe you had 
mentioned that previously, and I will add that.

The "no massive effort" text reflects the rough consensus of the working group.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:24:15 -0500

> * outbound-03 should mention header files explicitly in the list of

The particular example is clearly C code, so is covered by the definition 
from section 6.3, which is the list the Trust is supposed to start from and 
add to:

   IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
   processed by a computer.  Examples of these include ABNF definitions,
   XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values,
   MIBs, or even classical programming code.

(as a minor edit, I'd suggest removing the word "even").

>   on a massive effort to do this.  But they can do so easily if they

And if someone wants to fund it. But the piece is clearly not contributing 
all that much to the sentence, so I (as participant) am not against 
removing the piece.

>   seeing some e-mails about assigning old RFCs to the IETF Trust.

I signed mine in Prague.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:35:30 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> The particular example is clearly C code, so is covered by the
> definition from section 6.3, which is the list the Trust is supposed
> to start from and add to:
>

I believe it could be argued that a C header file is not "programming
code".  C header files describes an interface, it normally do not
contain any programming code.

> (as a minor edit, I'd suggest removing the word "even").

I agree.

> And if someone wants to fund it. But the piece is clearly not
> contributing all that much to the sentence, so I (as participant) am
> not against removing the piece.
>
>>

If the effort has already been initiated, retaining that part of the
sentence makes no sense to me.

/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:39:13 +0200

> mentioned that previously, and I will add that.

Thanks.

> The "no massive effort" text reflects the rough consensus of the

The massive effort appear to have already started, so the sentence
doesn't make sense to me.  I suspect reality has changed since that
consensus was gauged.

/Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:33:01 -0700

Simon
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: An example of the outbound rights problem

> * outbound-03 should mention header files explicitly in the list of

I agree - header files are in fact CODE since they are input and 
interpreted/processed by the code compiler/interpreter ...

>  effort to re-license older RFCs:

I agree with this too - trying to force those pre-existing entities to 'give 
the IETF Trust rights which it doesnt have to those efforts' will create a 
scenario where those that have them will feel like that they MUST give those 
rights to the IETF or suffer being prevented - either directly or covertly - 
from new initiatives...

It also puts the IETF in the space where it will likely be liable that it 
changed the processes underneath the relying parties - who already have 
existing efforts in place - to file new efforts under those original terms 
and conditions...

The reason is simple  - many of those entities who have already issued 
licenses under the previous IETF terms and conditions will now demand that 
their current and future filings be under those same set of terms and 
conditions, and the IETF is going to be hard pressed to say "No" IMHO.

The IETF has formal contracts with those people which are capable of being 
interpreted as permanent relationship's under those terms. Further ANY 
revisions to those pre-existing document MUST also be done under those same 
terms or the IETF would be again liable for stifling the upkeep and 
evolution of those efforts who would not 'turn over all rights to the IETF's 
Trust' something that WILL get the IETF into court on Antitrust and Fraud By 
Wire claims I am betting...

The reasoning is simple, those licenses were already issued to people would 
likely be upset and their lawyers may be as well, that they cannot expand or 
rework those efforts without giving them to the IETF as well... which would 
open the IETF to direct litigation IMHO.

There is also the issue to deal with "that changing the scope and 
requirements for an IETF initiative may also open the IETF to litigation as 
well as litigation against those directly involved in this process" - and 
this scares the hell out of me since we are all in this argument together...

The bottom line is that I dont think that the IETF Trust will withstand the 
first legal challenge to its existence whether this WG says it will or not. 
I further dont think that Jorge will gurantee that I am wrong either, so 
this is a real issue I think, and its an importrant one to address.

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:46:04 -0500

> contain any programming code.

I would feel completely ridiculous making such an argument.

I also dislike the idea of making judgments based on how source code is 
organized into files (there's often inline code in C++ .h files, for 
instance, and Java doesn't have header files as such at all); I believe the 
intent of the group was to include anything that's written in a programming 
language intended to be processed by a compiler, and will be happy to take 
suggestions on how to accurately reflect that into the text.

             Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:48:14 -0500

> doesn't make sense to me.  I suspect reality has changed since that

With "massive effort", we were thinking about stuff like attempting to find 
the owners of copyrights of deceased authors, going into prolonged 
negotiations with corporate lawyers and the like. What the Trust has 
started is far short of that.

After thinking about it, I think I support letting the "no massive effort" 
stay.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:02:06 +0200

On 2007-07-24 22:48, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> With "massive effort", we were thinking about stuff like attempting to 
> find the owners of copyrights of deceased authors, going into prolonged 
> After thinking about it, I think I support letting the "no massive 
> effort" stay.

I agree. It's only guidance anyway. Harmless clarification of intent.

    Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0700

The compiler will not function properly without the headers so they are in 
fact part of the code...

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: An example of the outbound rights problem

> instance, and Java doesn't have header files as such at all); I believe 
> the intent of the group was to include anything that's written in a 
> programming language intended to be processed by a compiler, and will be 
> happy to take suggestions on how to accurately reflect that into the text.
>
>             Harald
>
>
>
>
>