Subject: new tasks?

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:04:36 -0500

Now that the IESG has approved the main drafts produced by this group, 
we can turn to some unfinished business if we wish.  In particular, 
there are Valerie's disclosure template (there's also a Web-based 
disclosure system that the Secretariat is working on) and Pekka's Last 
Call draft.

So -- do people want to recharter to finish those documents?  Unless 
they prove to be unexpectedly controversial, I do not anticipate that 
we'll need to meet in Seoul.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:02:48 -0500 (EST)

I thought that we were going to treat the template as a implementation
detail and not "standardize" it (among other reasons, it goes beyond
the way we have been operating - the extensions may be optional but
it sure directs folk in a way that the existing (and new) documents
do not lead)

I think the template (and its web-based implementation) is a good thing
but I do not see a need to recharter to make it more formal that it
already is

I'm not sure about the last-call doc - if that would take a recharter to
say that the WG can work on changing how things are done then I'm
not a supporter of the idea (far too many worms in the 'change it' can
and the WG consensus was to not do that) - if its just a suggestion of 
a good thing then I'm not sure that a WG is needed to push it

Scott

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:26 +0200 (EET)

> but I do not see a need to recharter to make it more formal that it

But who decides what the "web-based implementation" will look like?  
Has it had enough review?

There are some things in the template I disagree very, very strongly, 
and I would certainly not wish to be part of any implementation, like:

                         No actual license is implied by submission
   of this template.
 
> a good thing then I'm not sure that a WG is needed to push it

I agree that opening up the charter might be a can of worms, and 
something like this could be pushed e.g. through individual submission 
as well if needed.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:38:17 -0500

> we'll need to meet in Seoul.

In short, I don't think we should recharter for the template, but I do
think we should progress Pekka's.  More later.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:15:04 -0500 (EST)

> No actual license is implied by submission

that is a factual statement - what is there to disagree with?

you may want to force people to provide a licence but that point of 
view was not supported by the working group

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:27:02 -0800

Speaking as AD.....

it's fairly routine that WGs spend a little mailing list time reviewing 
documents that are relevant to its scope, but are not products of the WG, 
if the chairs' evaluation is that this won't negatively impact the work of 
the WG.

Such documents get a Last Call (or simply approval) with the remark "This 
document has been reviewed in the IETF, but is not the product of any IETF 
WG" or something like that - WG consensus is not required to let them go 
ahead, but a strong WG consensus against it is an important consideration 
when deciding whether or not to publish.

If you have things that you think are important, and where you think they 
should have WG consensus before they are published, it's reasonable to ask 
for a recharter in order to make them WG work items.

In this case, I could certainly see arguments for putting both Pekka's 
proposed procedure mod and Val's proposed template in that category. But 
again - there can be arguments against it, including speed and "let's just 
try it".

                       Harald

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:31:56 +0200 (EET)

> view was not supported by the working group

If someone submits the template stating that he's offering (e.g.) RF 
licensing, shouldn't that be considered "binding" in itself?  Is it OK 
to sue everyone who has not gone the rounds of the actual license 
negotiations as nothing is implied by the license itself?

The same applies, of course, to a lesser degree to other license types 
as well; until you've negotiated the actual license with the submitter 
of the template, the template does not help at all.

I'm not saying that people are forced to provide a license, but I'm 
saying that people who claim to allow licensing with specific terms, 
must also be bound to those terms -- and in cases where there is no 
real need for the actual license, not require the extra hoops to jump 
through!

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:36:48 -0500 (EST)

> licensing, shouldn't that be considered "binding" in itself?

we may be reading the english of the statement you reference in a different
way

"No actual license is implied by submission
of this template."

I think this is correct - no licence is *implied* by (just) submitting
the template

> real need for the actual license, not require the extra hoops to jump 

no implications here - if they have made the statement that they
allow licensing then they clearly have to be held to it - that is a 
direct statement not an implication

would adding the word "just" (as I did above) fix your issue?

Scott

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:08:15 +0200 (EET)

> I think this is correct - no licence is *implied* by (just) submitting

I'm not able to see the difference.

> direct statement not an implication

But by submitting the template, the template states that no license is 
implied (they're not held to it).  There is nothing in the "license 
declaration" that states what the actual license will be like .. it 
just asks the potential licensor to fill out his *intentions* not what 
he would be willing to be bound to *do*.  (Note that point e) uses the 
word "Commit", but otherwise there is no strong text.)

That's one problem: the template does not seem binding.

The other problem is that in the case when there clearly isn't a need
for actual license negotiations (like w/ RF licenses), the template
itself should be enough for all "RF licensees" to not worry about
obtaining a "real" license.

(some other possible conditions like reciprocality should be implied
for such "quiet licensees")

> would adding the word "just" (as I did above) fix your issue?

Probably not, maybe because I don't even quite understand how that
would change the tone of the sensence.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:42:29 -0500

--On Wednesday, 26 November, 2003 22:08 +0200 Pekka Savola 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The other problem is that in the case when there clearly isn't
> a need for actual license negotiations (like w/ RF licenses),
> the template itself should be enough for all "RF licensees" to
> not worry about obtaining a "real" license.
>
> (some other possible conditions like reciprocality should be
> implied for such "quiet licensees")

Pekka,

I am saddened that we seem to be going around this loop again, 
but...

(1) I agree with the point I think you are making, i.e., that 
the template shouldn't take away any rights or grants of 
licenses that the text supplied grants.  Scott, I don't think 
"just" does it either, although this is a matter for lawyers. 
I would assume that an introduction to the template that 
indicates that submission of a statement or terms using the 
template does not, in itself, grant any license although those 
statements or terms might do so.

(2) I know "RF License" has become shorthand for something else 
(and much more) in some communities.  But it isn't.  Really. 
"Royalty-free" means "royalty free".  It doesn't intrinsically 
provide that the IPR-holding organization cannot require, e.g., 
signup, identification, specific additional terms, restrictions 
on use to certain applications or contexts, distribution or 
non-distribution or source, etc.  It just means "no royalties". 
If something else, more along the lines of a general license 
that doesn't require any individual arrangements, is intended, 
then the statements --or a checkbox in the template-- had best 
say that... or whatever version of that is lawyer-acceptable. 
And we had best avoid the confusion we create by saying "RF" 
when we mean those other things.

     john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:39:37 -0800

> word "Commit", but otherwise there is no strong text.)

As far as I can tell (but Jorge is the authority, I think), submitting an 
IPR declaration does not create what a lawyer would call a license. So the 
statement is true.

But I think that submitting an IPR declaration that promises certain terms 
(like GNU-compatible, RF or other Good Stuff) creates what a lawyer would 
call a promise. And if you promise something, you have promised something.

Which makes me think ..... that the template would be better off without 
the sentence.

                  Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:15:04 -0800

Harald - the person submitting anything to the IETF must have the legal
authority to do so and most submitters today do not I would wager.
Especially if their work is paid for by their company's. This release
process needs also to be addressed, by some declaration by the IP submitter
that they have the authority to do so, and I know we have brought this up
before but its important I think.

Todd

---

From: Fluri Dave <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:32:31 -0500

On November 26, 2003 16:39, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >> no implications here - if they have made the statement that
> >> they allow licensing then they clearly have to be held to it -
> >> that is a direct statement not an implication
> >
> > But by submitting the template, the template states that no
> > license is implied (they're not held to it).  There is nothing
> > in the "license declaration" that states what the actual
> > license will be like .. it just asks the potential licensor to
> > fill out his *intentions* not what he would be willing to be
> > bound to *do*.  (Note that point e) uses the word "Commit", but
> > otherwise there is no strong text.)
>
> As far as I can tell (but Jorge is the authority, I think),
> submitting an IPR declaration does not create what a lawyer would
> call a license. So the statement is true.
>
> But I think that submitting an IPR declaration that promises
> certain terms (like GNU-compatible, RF or other Good Stuff)
> creates what a lawyer would call a promise. And if you promise
> something, you have promised something.
>
> Which makes me think ..... that the template would be better off
> without the sentence.
>
>                   Harald
>

How about something like this:

	"Unless expressly declared in the body of this document, the 
submission of this template, alone, shall not be construed as 
granting a license to any of the technology described herein."

Dave

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:02:33 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[...]
> call a promise. And if you promise something, you have promised something.

Actually, if you look close to the template, it does not *promise* 
anything AFAICS.  I talks about "intention" -- and intentions can 
change :-)

> Which makes me think ..... that the template would be better off without 

My personal reword (discussed off-list with Scott) was:

(note: this also changes "intention" -> "committal".)

Ok, change:
                                                                                                       
   This document is an IETF Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration
   Template and is submitted to inform the IETF of a) patent information
   regarding the IETF document or contribution listed in Section IV, and
   b) a Patent Holder's intention with respect to the licensing of its
   necessary patent claims. No actual license is implied by submission
   of this template. Please complete and submit a separate template for
   each IETF document or contribution to which the disclosed patent
   information relates.
                                                                                                       
to:
                                                                                                       
   This document is an IETF Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration
   Template and is submitted to inform the IETF of a) patent information
   regarding the IETF document or contribution listed in Section IV, and
   b) a Patent Holder's committal with respect to the licensing of its
   necessary patent claims. 

   While the submission of the template commits the Patent Holder to 
   at least as good terms as it chooses, the submission does include 
   a license in itself; each licensor must negotiate a
   license with the Patent Holder. 

   Please complete and submit a
   separate template for each IETF document or contribution to which
   the disclosed patent information relates.

(Obviously, some wordsmithing would be good, but I guess this makes 
the point come across as clearly as possible...)

This doesn't fix my second problem, where I think RF should be 
treated as "no license required", but that's a bit of a can of worms 
as discussed separately.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:39:58 +0200 (EET)

Whoops, I made a couple of typos in the document, like forgetting a 
"not" and using "licensor" instead of "licensee".  The new one should 
be more readable:

   While the submission of the template commits the Patent Holder to 
   at least as good terms as it chooses, the submission does not 
   include a license in itself; each licensee must negotiate a
   license with the Patent Holder. 

   Please complete and submit a separate template for each IETF 
   document or contribution to which the disclosed patent information 
   relates.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:28:10 -0500

> That's one problem: the template does not seem binding.

If the policy isn't binding, the template certainly isn't going to be.
The template isn't supposed to be a policy vehicle.  It's just supposed
to make it easier for people submitting disclosures to make their intent
clear.  Its only purpose is to help disclosers say what they want to
say.  

> obtaining a "real" license.

In its current state it won't be adequate for everyone -- it might not
ever be adequate for everyone -- but let it evolve through use.  Let the
Secretariat put up the web interface, as a guide and a convenience, and
see what feedback they get.  

Regarding your proposed new text: currently the discloser can put lots
of information in the "other notes" section -- including the possibility
that no further communication about licensing is required.  Valerie put
a lot of work into the wording in the draft, and to me it looked
well-balanced -- it didn't say too much or too little.  I think your
text loses that balance.  If the original phrasing is ambiguous, let's
add a word, maybe two, but that's all.

However, personally, I think the right thing to do is put it out there
in the real world and get some feedback from actual use.  

You may not be in the USA, but Happy Thanksgiving anyway

..Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:09:11 +0100

> clear.  Its only purpose is to help disclosers say what they want to

Exactly. And frankly if people don't accept that we might as well stop
the discussion right here and give up the idea of a template.

Personally I see the value of an optional template, but it is only a
tool and doesn't need to be processed as if it was a protocol spec.
So I'd suggest that if we want to complete this work (and the Last Call
proposal) this should be done quickly with a very lightweight recharter.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:40:52 -0500

--On Friday, 28 November, 2003 11:09 +0100 Brian E Carpenter 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > license is implied (they're not held to it).  There is
>> > nothing in the "license declaration" that states what the
>> > actual license will be like .. it just asks the potential
>> > licensor to fill out his *intentions* not what he would be
>> > willing to be bound to *do*.  (Note that point e) uses the
>> If the policy isn't binding, the template certainly isn't
>> going to be. The template isn't supposed to be a policy
>> vehicle.  It's just supposed to make it easier for people
>> submitting disclosures to make their intent clear.  Its only
>> purpose is to help disclosers say what they want to say.
>
> Exactly. And frankly if people don't accept that we might as
> well stop the discussion right here and give up the idea of a
> template.
>
> Personally I see the value of an optional template, but it is
> only a tool and doesn't need to be processed as if it was a
> protocol spec. So I'd suggest that if we want to complete this
> work (and the Last Call proposal) this should be done quickly
> with a very lightweight recharter.

Brian,

Your comments suggest to me something we might sensibly do which 
would solve a problem (good) and stop this ongoing argument 
(better :-( ).

Can we move toward two templates, both optional?

	Template #1 is more or less what we have -- something
	that provides a relatively flexible mechanism for
	submitters to specify what they are and are not willing
	to do, what needs to be negotiated, etc.
	
	Template #2 is what a number of people obviously want
	and keep distracting themselves by asking for in
	different ways.  E.g., it makes it _very_ easy to make a
	binding, no royalties, no restrictions, no individual
	licenses, general license grant/statement.  Presumably,
	although the lawyers would need to make sure the
	language was right, it would require filling in only the
	name and contact information of the IPR holder and a
	description of what content/material is being covered.

Since both would be optional, it wouldn't change any of the 
things which have been the subject of debate for months.  Or, in 
Scott's terms, neither one would be a policy vehicle, and the 
presence of two template options would help make that more 
clear.  But it would make it extremely easy for someone to be 
clear, and for the IETF to be sure that they are being clear, 
when the second type of statement is intended.  Whether the 
second was used, and how often, would be a matter for separate 
religious debate, having little to do with the current (or 
likely recharter) tasks for the WG or, in itself, with IETF 
policy.

Would that take us forward?

    john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:33:00 -0500

> Would that take us forward?

Either way.  With one template, you put it out there, see how people use
it, gather feedback, improve it and maybe split it.  With two you do the
same except instead of splitting you might merge them together.  Hmm,
you might also split them even more.  Maybe two would be better to start
with because you can get more detailed usage data.  

In any case this isn't a job for a mess of protocol designers.  It's for
the IETF equivalent of customer service.  I would give this task to the
Secretariat, with a liaison (like SOB) to help make sure the web forms
reflect policy, and then give them your feedback.

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:47:44 -0500

--On Friday, 28 November, 2003 12:33 -0500 Scott W Brim 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In any case this isn't a job for a mess of protocol designers.
> It's for the IETF equivalent of customer service.  I would
> give this task to the Secretariat, with a liaison (like SOB)
> to help make sure the web forms reflect policy, and then give
> them your feedback.

And this probably reflects a philosophical difference that 
should be under more focused discussed elsewhere, but I'd give 
it to the IESG, or the IETF Chair, and advise them to figure out 
the best way to make the right things happen.  Our trying to 
manage the secretariat and its priorities, or even to give it 
tasks, or to figure out the right way to supervise those tasks, 
from a WG or WG mailing list leads us quickly into the kinds of 
troubles we have seen too much of elsewhere.

To the extent to which we really believe in WGs driving these 
things, we should probably even task the WG Chair(s) to deal 
with the IESG on this, rather than even trying to make that 
level of assignment from the list.

But that isn't really what you meant, was it?

    john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:40:31 -0500

On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 12:47:44PM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> >In any case this isn't a job for a mess of protocol designers.  It's
> >for the IETF equivalent of customer service.  I would give this task
> >to the Secretariat, with a liaison (like SOB) to help make sure the
> >web forms reflect policy, and then give them your feedback.
> 
> And this probably reflects a philosophical difference that should be
> under more focused discussed elsewhere, but I'd give it to the IESG,
> or the IETF Chair, and advise them to figure out the best way to make
> the right things happen.  Our trying to manage the secretariat and its
> priorities, or even to give it tasks, or to figure out the right way
> to supervise those tasks, from a WG or WG mailing list leads us
> quickly into the kinds of troubles we have seen too much of elsewhere.

Whatever administrative path is most appealing to the administrators.
The purpose of the WG was to figure out the drafts, not to figure out
web forms that reflect those drafts.  It doesn't feel like the most
efficient use of resources to have a WG do the latter.

> But that isn't really what you meant, was it?

That wasn't the specific issue, but that would be fine with me.  

swb