Subject: copyright notices in RFC 6716

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:18:09 +0200

All,

I noticed that the recent RFC 6716 contains some reference code that
contain the copyright and licenses notice reproduced below.  The IETF
TLP [1] mandates a certain form of copyright notices and the TLP does
not, as far as I can see, permit varying the boiler plate in any way.
Note that both companies and organisations are mentioned in the
copyright notice in RFC 6716, besides individuals.

Does this indicate a policy change, a mistake with that document, or
something else?

Btw, kudos to the RFC 6716 authors for shipping reference code!  I hope
this will establish a best practice for standards in the future.

/Simon

[1] http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm

Copyright 1994-2011 IETF Trust, Xiph.Org, Skype Limited, Octasic,
                    Jean-Marc Valin, Timothy B. Terriberry,
                    CSIRO, Gregory Maxwell, Mark Borgerding,
                    Erik de Castro Lopo. All rights reserved.

This file is extracted from RFC6716. Please see that RFC for additional
information.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

- Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:42:45 +0000

I was only peripherally involved in this and don't know all the in's and outs of this but let me try and provide a bit of information and hopefully someone from the IETF Trust or RFC Editor can correct me where I am wrong. 

The internet draft was done with the normal boiler plate that granted a bunch of rights to the IETF Trust. There was also text in the draft where the authors granted additional rights.  The trust normally publishes the RFC with about the same license that is used in the draft however the Trust retains the rights to do whatever they want within the range of the license granted to them in the draft. In this case, the RFC was published with slightly different boiler plate than what was in draft. 

So no, I don't think the policy has changed, and no I don't think this was a mistake. I think the RFC Editor working with the IETF Trust and IETF legal advice made this change. My understanding of the reasons for the change was something like this makes it easier for some linux distribution to include the RFC with their distribution or something. Keep in mind this is a weird RFC in that it includes a huge amount of normative code in the RFC. 

Hope this helps - and amazed anyone noticed. 

Cullen

PS - I may have this all wrong - I'm not the person that knows but I hope that provides some help.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:00:52 +0200

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]> writes:

> I was only peripherally involved in this and don't know all the in's
> and outs of this but let me try and provide a bit of information and
> hopefully someone from the IETF Trust or RFC Editor can correct me
> where I am wrong.

Thanks.  Input from members of the Trust, if they were involved, would
be appreciated.

> The internet draft was done with the normal boiler plate that granted
> a bunch of rights to the IETF Trust. There was also text in the draft
> where the authors granted additional rights.  The trust normally
> publishes the RFC with about the same license that is used in the
> draft however the Trust retains the rights to do whatever they want
> within the range of the license granted to them in the draft. In this
> case, the RFC was published with slightly different boiler plate than
> what was in draft.

That is not the case, draft -16 had the same license.

> So no, I don't think the policy has changed, and no I don't think this
> was a mistake. I think the RFC Editor working with the IETF Trust and
> IETF legal advice made this change. My understanding of the reasons
> for the change was something like this makes it easier for some linux
> distribution to include the RFC with their distribution or
> something.

I don't believe that is the case here.  The license used is the same as
normal license, only the copyright header is different.  Distributions
rarely cares who the copyright holder is.  IETF rules says additional
copyright notices aren't permitted.

/Simon

> Keep in mind this is a weird RFC in that it includes a huge amount of
> normative code in the RFC.
>
>> [1]
>> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm
>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:50:00 -0400

Simon:

The authors wanted to grant additional rights beyond those that are granted by the TLP.  They indicated those rights in Section 10 of the internet-Draft.  This was challenged during WG Last Call, and it was challenged during IETF Last Call.  In each case, the authors make their desire clear and the community supported them.  For this reason the IETF Trust granted the usual TLP rights and the additional rights as well.

Russ

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:33:35 +0200

Russ,

I can't seem to align what you say with the document content.  The
rights granted by the license text in the document (quoted below)
appears to me be identical to the TLP except that the copyright header
also includes non-authors.  Is this what you refer to with granting
additional rights?

My concern is not about rights granted (they appear to follow the TLD),
but with the form of the copyright header that deviates from the TLD
boilerplate.

What puzzles me is that the explanation that I have received earlier is
that variations beyond what the TLP demand is not permitted even if
there is community support for the content of a particular document.
I'm happy if this is now the policy, as it would allow including more
source code into RFCs.

/Simon

Russ Housley <[email-masked]> writes:

> Simon:
>
> The authors wanted to grant additional rights beyond those that are
> granted by the TLP.  They indicated those rights in Section 10 of the
> internet-Draft.  This was challenged during WG Last Call, and it was
> challenged during IETF Last Call.  In each case, the authors make
> their desire clear and the community supported them.  For this reason
> the IETF Trust granted the usual TLP rights and the additional rights
> as well.
>
> Russ
>
>

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:47:20 -0700

> but with the form of the copyright header that deviates from the TLD
Is there from this point forward a requirement for future works in this 
vein to also use the same rights statement? I am curious because of the 
complexity of merging this with other right specific issues.

For instance if ID "A" is published with normal use rights and it is 
expanded in a revision which then increases its rights to some secondary 
set of rights-states and in so doing permanently seems to alter the 
baseline.

What also if ID "A" is published with rights-set #1 and a formal work 
(like those described in the AIA (the America Invents Act) for instance, 
and then this is altered. The issue is how these rights do or do not 
promulgate from ID or RFC revision-to-revision.

Todd//
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5275 - Release Date: 09/18/12
>
>

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:51:29 -0400

Simon:

The RFC contains the usual boilerplate and one additional paragraph.  The rights granted in the additional paragraph align with the rights that the authors wanted to provide.  Here is the additional paragraph:

   The licenses granted by the IETF Trust to this RFC under Section 3.c
   of the Trust Legal Provisions shall also include the right to extract
   text from Sections 1 through 8 and Appendix A and Appendix B of this
   RFC and create derivative works from these extracts, and to copy,
   publish, display and distribute such derivative works in any medium
   and for any purpose, provided that no such derivative work shall be
   presented, displayed or published in a manner that states or implies
   that it is part of this RFC or any other IETF Document.

Russ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:52:57 -0400

Todd:

No.  The additional rights are granted for RFC 6716, and there is no implication about any other RFC.

Russ

On Sep 18, 2012, at 5:47 PM, tglassey wrote:

> Is there from this point forward a requirement for future works in this vein to also use the same rights statement? I am curious because of the complexity of merging this with other right specific issues.
> 
> For instance if ID "A" is published with normal use rights and it is expanded in a revision which then increases its rights to some secondary set of rights-states and in so doing permanently seems to alter the baseline.
> 
> What also if ID "A" is published with rights-set #1 and a formal work (like those described in the AIA (the America Invents Act) for instance, and then this is altered. The issue is how these rights do or do not promulgate from ID or RFC revision-to-revision.
> 
> Todd//

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:28:11 -0700

> No.  The additional rights are granted for RFC 6716, and there is no implication about any other RFC.
I do understand that Russ, its the precedent I am worried about,. The 
process issues. My point also is that ID owners are not the only ones 
who can write an ID on a subject, any number of them under the current 
rules are possible. Of course the process of that would be slammed in 
the specific WG so it hasnt happened yet but with the current process 
rules there is nothing to stop it.

Or for that mater pirating another's work in any form.

Todd
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5276 - Release Date: 09/18/12
>
>
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:20:54 +0200

Russ,

I had missed that section (which seems like a wonderful section btw).
However the license isn't what my initial question was about, so this is
a red herring.  This also explains why I wasn't able to follow Cullen's
initial reply.  My question was about the copyright header.  Let's see
if I can be clearer...  The TLP says the copyright header must be:

Copyright (c) <insert year> IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

but the code in the document uses:

The difference between these two forms is what I'm wondering about.
Essentially what I'm asking is which one applies of:

 1) Was the copyright header variation permitted intentionally for this
 document as an exception to the TLP?

 2) Nobody noticed that the copyright header was different from what the
 TLP demands.

 3) Something else.

/Simon

Russ Housley <[email-masked]> writes:

> Simon:
>
> The RFC contains the usual boilerplate and one additional paragraph.
> The rights granted in the additional paragraph align with the rights
> that the authors wanted to provide.  Here is the additional paragraph:
>