Subject: Further rights granted by draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:24:00 +0200

Thanks for writing this draft.  I'll bounce the text to the FSF
lawyers.  However, my feelings are that this is not sufficient to make
it possible for me to incorporate RFCs, and consequently to implement
them, in my free software projects.  Specifically:

   c. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
      protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
      Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
      he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
      perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
      right and license to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute,
      and incorporate into other works, for any purpose (and not limited
      to use within the IETF Standards Process) any portion of the
      Contribution as long as the extract is not modified (other than
                   --------------------------------------
      translated into languages other than English), proper
      acknowledgement is given and as long as the ISOC copyright notice
      is included.  It also being understood that the licenses granted
      under this paragraph (c) shall not be deemed to grant any right
      under any patent, patent application or other similar intellectual
      property right.

My users require the right to be able to modify my products, and if I
incorporate parts of RFCs, I can't fulfill the needs of my customers.
I found that incorporating parts of RFCs is often required in
implementations (think ASN.1 schemas, StringPrep tables).

Further, it may be useful to clarify "proper acknowledgment".  I
dislike the acknowledgments required by the old 4 clause BSD license.

Thanks,
Simon

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

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:25:52 -0400

In looking at the draft again, I see another problem: it
requires the Contributor to grant a license, but it does not 
specify the licensee.  There is really no license grant here.

This could be fixed by adding the following words between "to"
and "extract" in line 6:

"to any implementer of an IETF standard or specification"

The question of making modifications is a legitimate one.
Shouldn't this be treated the same way as executable code
under 3.3.a(E)?  That is, permit modifications to be made
unless the Contributor includes the "No Derivatives" legend?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Simon Josefsson
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Further rights granted by draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-01.txt

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:57:24 +0000

Jorge - rather than making the automatic-grant wide-open, the automatic grant process should be stayed and what is granted is the narrowest scope possible - any widening of the scope of the license should be done as an adjustment (amendment) to those earlier claims.

Just my 2 cents.

T.
--
Regards,
Todd

This message (including any 
attachments) contains confidential 
information intended for a 
specific individual and purpose, 
and is protected by law. If you 
are not the intended recipient, 
you should delete this message. 
Any disclosure, copying, or 
distribution of this message, or 
the taking of any action based on 
it, is strictly prohibited. 

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>