Subject: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:47:44 +0200

Greetings,
in the process of preparing the next version of -incoming, incorporating
the list-confirmed decisions of the Chicago WG meeting, a couple of
issues have been brought to light.

One concerns the granting of a license to the author to use the text
submitted for an RFC in other work - referred to in Chicago discussions
by the label of "SPARC addendum".

Two approaches have been suggested:

1) Insert a "read-only" license into -incoming, granting essentially the
same rights as is granted to any other reader, but linking them to the
submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:

> 5.10. Contributors retention of rights
> .br
> Notwithstanding any terms in this document to the contrary, in addition
> to any rights under copyright retained by Contributor and in addition to
> any rights generally granted by the TETF trust, Contributor retains, and
> grants to each Co-Contributor to an RFC in which such Contributor's
> Contribution, or a derivative work thereof may appear, the right:  .in +3
> .ti -3
> (A) to copy, publish, display, and distribute any RFC that includes the
> Contribution, in whole or in part, .ti -3
> (B) to prepare translations of such RFC into languages other than
> English, in whole or in part, and to copy, publish, display, and
> distribute such translations or portions thereof, and .ti -3
> (C) to reproduce any trademarks, service marks or trade names which are
> included in the RFC solely in connection with the reproduction,
> distribution or publication of the RFC thereof as permitted by this
> Section 5.10, provided that when reproducing RFCs, trademark and service
> mark identifiers used in the RFC, including TM and (R), will be preserved.
> .in -3
>
> Notwithstanding the above rights, the Contributor does not have the right
> to represent any document as an RFC, or equivalent to an RFC, if it is
> not a full and complete copy or translation of the published RFC.

2) Granting a special license to produce derivative works from the text
of the finished RFC, subject only to the limitation that the result
can't be presented as if it was an RFC.

The argument has been presented (in private) that the following
principles were "always implied" wrt RFCs:

	(1) The author(s) or editor(s) of an RFC were the
	authors/ editors.  The RFC Editor wasn't the author, an
	editor, or the owner of the document.  The RFC Editor
	acted as the agent of the author in adding any
	boilerplate and licenses, whether it was the early "...
	distribution unlimited..." or the current pages of ISOC/
	IETF Trust boilerplate.
	
	(2) If there was more than one author, they were the
	compilers of the document as a group and their joint
	efforts produced the document from their work and any
	other work that they incorporated and took
	responsibility for having the rights to use.
	
	(3) The author(s) granted the community the right to
	reproduce and use, but retained, as a group if there was
	more than one, "all rights" from a legal sense.

This, if taken as "the whole truth", does not seem consistent with the
model that's been in -incoming for a while, where the IETF Trust has
some rights in the RFC series, at least to the point of requiring that
derived works not be presented
as RFCs in the RFC series.

Input is sought on this issue.

The other issue, raised by Jorge Contreras, concerns the split of the
work of this WG into two documents (-incoming and -outgoing); if we
start having language in the -incoming document granting some outgoing
rights, the separation becomes rather blurred from his perspective.

The opposite viewpoint is that the two documents have distinct audiences
and distinct status in the IETF process, and that it therefore makes no
sense to merge them; such a merge would also be inconsistent with the
charter of the WG.

Input is sought on this issue too.

         Harald Alvestrand, WG chair

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:36:13 +0200

> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:

That seems to be an OK approach.  I support that it should be very clear
for IETF contributors that they retain the copyright of their
submission.  To make that as clear as possible, making that explicit in
-incoming seems like a good idea.

Although the devil is in the details, specifically:

>> Contribution, or a derivative work thereof may appear, the right:

Ouch!  This goes way beyond "author retains their rights", it grants
co-authors some rights to other co-authors' contributions.

More importantly, the text does not explain that authors retains the
copyright in their contribution.  That is the most important thing to
describe in -incoming.

The text would introduces a further legal class of parties with
copyright claims on documents: authors, co-authors, and those parties
given rights via -outbound.

Given that the IETF have policies to reduce the number of co-authors,
this text seems problematic.  It may be that a contributor wrote a large
portion of a document without being listed as an author.  This can
happen when an RFC is revised.  For example, RFC 4398 contains text
mostly written by others, still I'm the author of the RFC.

Is this complexity required to solve whatever is the perceived problem
here?  Generally, I think it is better to first agree on the problem
before proposing and discussing solutions.

I think we should try to reduce legal complexity, not increase
complexity.  In my opinion, the simplest way to reduce legal complexity
would be if authors granted everyone full rights to the document.

>> not a full and complete copy or translation of the published RFC.

This seems like a frivolously added restriction, and not an added right.
What is this intended to protect against?

> can't be presented as if it was an RFC.

If that license is granted to everyone, I would strongly support that
idea.

Otherwise, it seems to add legal complexity, and as far as I can see,
granting these rights is not consistent with any earlier IETF policies.
I don't see anything in RFC 2026, RFC 3978 or -incoming/-outgoing that
supports this idea.

Note that if the RFC editor's modifications to the document where
minimal, the original authors do retain the copyright on the significant
parts of published work (i.e., except the boiler plates) since he is the
copyright owner of it.

> 	more than one, "all rights" from a legal sense.

This is not my understanding of the IETF policies.  I wish that any
claims that something has been "always implied" is backed up with
references to some earlier legal text that the IETF has used.

> sense to merge them; such a merge would also be inconsistent with the

I disagree with the WG charter here.  I think there should be only
document that explains that when you submit a document to the IETF, you
permit others to produce derivative works of it.  Today authors grant
that right to everyone who works with the document within the IETF.  But
that causes problems for free software that wish to include RFCs in
documentation or packages.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:54:14 +0200

> copyright in their contribution.  That is the most important thing to

Just before anyone else goes off on this tangent: This is presently stated 
in -incoming, section 3.1 of the -01 version. This paragraph (note the 
section number) comes in *addition* to that, granting the parties 
submitting material some special right to what is produced (the RFC) based 
on their material.

The rights granted in this proposed text are, BTW, identical to those that 
the IETF grants to all readers in -outgoing; the difference is that since 
these form part of the rules under which the submitters licensed their 
contribution, it would be impossible to restrict those rights at a later 
stage. Not that I think there's any chance of such a restriction being 
imposed.

                  Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:06:48 +0200

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

> The rights granted in this proposed text are, BTW, identical to those
> that the IETF grants to all readers in -outgoing

The rights are the same, but the recipient of the rights is different.
The proposed text would give co-authors rights via -incoming.
Introducing co-authors as a different class of contributor seems like a
new idea, and I think it is a bad idea since it causes complexity.

> the difference is that since these form part of the rules under which
> the submitters licensed their contribution, it would be impossible to
> restrict those rights at a later stage. Not that I think there's any
> chance of such a restriction being imposed.

Then why is there a push to add this to -incoming at all?

/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:13:56 +0200

> that the IETF grants to all readers in -outgoing

I noticed that this is incorrect, -outgoing does not contain anything
like the proposed text, as far as I can see.

/Simon

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:31:53 -0700

Harald
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

>> for IETF contributors that they

Or those people they represent...

>> retain the copyright of their
>> submission.

There is another PROBLEM with the current submission model. That is that if 
someone writing is a sponsored writer, they MUST also list the Legal 
Counsel's CONTACT INFO for the SPONSOR so that any and all relying parties 
are informed of who they must contact ass part of their formal diligence. 
Otherwise, the IETF's Procexss is not USER FRIENDLY.

The idea is that ANYONE relying on these IP's should be able to get a handle 
on what the Sponsor's Lawyers are doing in relation to the IP...

This is also especially important to put in place when there is no TAKEDOWN 
Process or Policy for the IETF.

Todd Glassey

>>  To make that as clear as possible, making that explicit in
>> Although the devil is iFrom [email-masked] Wed Oct 03 10:33:10 2007
From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>,
	"Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:31:53 -0700
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

Harald
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

>> for IETF contributors that they

Or those people they represent...

>> retain the copyright of their
>> submission.

There is another PROBLEM with the current submission model. That is that if 
someone writing is a sponsored writer, they MUST also list the Legal 
Counsel's CONTACT INFO for the SPONSOR so that any and all relying parties 
are informed of who they must contact ass part of their formal diligence. 
Otherwise, the IETF's Procexss is not USER FRIENDLY.

The idea is that ANYONE relying on these IP's should be able to get a handle 
on what the Sponsor's Lawyers are doing in relation to the IP...

This is also especially important to put in place when there is no TAKEDOWN 
Process or Policy for the IETF.

Todd Glassey

>>  To make that as clear as possible, making that explicit in

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:27:14 -0700

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:27:14 -0700

Again - what do you do about technology that is being written about, but 
that is not owned by those submitting the IP for vetting to the IETF?

The problem with the current submission model is that doesnt mandate that 
any and aall IP's submitted must be legally the property of the Submitters 
or that the submitters actually MUST own or control rights to. Or be 
formally authorized by their Sponsor to submit materials on behalf of the 
Sponsor under Work for Hire docterine here in the US,

Todd Glassey.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

> Note that if the RFC editor's modifications to tilto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

Again - what do you do about technology that is being written about, but 
that is not owned by those submitting the IP for vetting to the IETF?

The problem with the current submission model is that doesnt mandate that 
any and aall IP's submitted must be legally the property of the Submitters 
or that the submitters actually MUST own or control rights to. Or be 
formally authorized by their Sponsor to submit materials on behalf of the 
Sponsor under Work for Hire docterine here in the US,

Todd Glassey.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

he document where

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:38:06 -0700

Damn spell checker - sorry - I meant "as" and not "ass" - my apologies.

T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "Simon Josefsson" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: -Incoming issues in need of resolution

> There is another PROBLEM with the current submission model. That is that 
> if someone writing is a sponsored writer, they MUST also list the Legal 
> The idea is that ANYONE relying on these IP's should be able to get a 
> handle on what the Sponsor's Lawyers are doing in relation to the IP...
>
> This is also especially important to put in place when there is no 
> TAKEDOWN Process or Policy for the IETF.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
>> Just before anyone else goes off on this tangent: This is presently 
>> stated in -incoming, section 3.1 of the -01 version. This paragraph (note 
>> the section number) comes in *addition* to that, granting the parties 
>> submitting material some special right to what is produced (the RFC) 
>> based on their material.
>>
>> that the IETF grants to all readers in -outgoing; the difference is that 
>> since these form part of the rules under which the submitters licensed 
>> their contribution, it would be impossible to restrict those rights at a 
>> later stage. Not that I think there's any chance of such a restriction 
>> being imposed.
>>
>>                  Harald
>>
>>
>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:48:05 +1300

My opinions:

> submission agreement rather than to an IETF Trust grant decision:

I think this gets us back into the quagmire of trying
to draft precise legal text to be frozen in a BCP. I believe
it's much wiser to state the intent to give authors and
contributors adequate rights to use their own material,
and leave the Trust to define *and* maintain the appropriate
legal text. Therefore,

> can't be presented as if it was an RFC.

I prefer this, with the Trust being enjoined to maintain
the principle that the RFC Editor is an agent of the authors
and of the community.

<snip>

> sense to merge them; such a merge would also be inconsistent with the

I think we're too far down the road to merge them. Let's maintain
course and get them finished, please. This has gone on far too
long already.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter
    University of Auckland