Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:13:24 -0500

On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Martin Duerst wrote:

> I *assume* it's the same as for the TM Licence at
> http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF_General_TM_License.pdf,
> which would be:
>
> IETF Trust
> 1775 Wiehle Ave
> Reston, VA 201905108
> c/o IETF Administrative Director
> Facsimile: 703.326.9881

This is correct.

Alternatively, one could pdf a signed copy and email to [email-masked].

I am investigating automating the process and will keep you apprised  
of the possibility and progress.

Ray
IAD

>
> However, it would REALLY be good if the Contributor licence
> also contained the necessary details on how and where to
> submit. I have already made that suggestion on the IETF list.
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>
> At 12:32 08/12/18, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>> I've seen
>> http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf
>> Where are we supposed to have our WG members send the signed  
>> forms?  I'd like
>> to get our WG unstuck, since IETF action on fixing RFC 5378 seems  
>> unlikely.
>>
>> Randy
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: macbroadcast <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:59:23 +0100

>> c/o IETF Administrative Director

ok, i put an IETF logo on our sourceforge oage   last week ,  please  
don´t sue me i will send
a signed document in the next days.

thanks for your  appreciation

marc

--
Les Enfants Terribles - WWW.LET.DE
Marc Manthey 50672 Köln - Germany
Hildeboldplatz 1a
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
mail: [email-masked]
jabber :[email-masked]
IRC: #opencu  freenode.net
twitter: http://twitter.com/macbroadcast
web: http://www.let.de

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and  
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

Please note that according to the German law on data retention,  
information on every electronic information exchange with me is  
retained for a period of six months.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:14:44 -0500

Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?

I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
rights.  Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:21:39 -0500

> rights.  Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?

I think it will make it easier to get proof of the necessary rights
having been granted if there's a repository that makes available the
names of those who have granted the rights once and for all.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:35:14 -0500

> names of those who have granted the rights once and for all.

Concur.  Names will be posted.

Ray

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:26:33 -0500

> rights.  Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?

I would envision folks providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their  
pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted  
online for other Contributors to  ascertain whether a pre-existing  
work has been so licensed.

Ray

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:12:42 +0100

> work has been so licensed.

How does this help contributors use the older material?  As far as I
understood the rules, it is the author that needs to get the necessary
rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF.
The form appears to give the necessary rights from the original
contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors.

/Simon

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:27:29 -0500

> contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors.

Good point.  Probably need to update Trust Policy - I'll check into it.

Ray

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:32:50 -0800

Hi -

(I trimmed the CC list, assuming that the WG chairs and Trustees that
care about this stuff are already listening to the IETF discussion.)

> From: "Ray Pelletier" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "Working Group Chairs"
<[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>; "Trustees" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
>

> work has been so licensed.
...

>From this list of names and the content of a pre-5378 RFC, how can a
contributor ascertain that that pre-existing work has been licensed in
its entirety?  Suppose, for example, it contained an extended passage
which was submitted to the working group either on a mailing list or
hammered out in a face-to-face session, but is not identified as such.
Particularly in the latter case (but also in the case of incomplete WG
archives) there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way for a contributor
to make this determination with much confidence.

Just as a simple "for example": what is the set of names that needs to be
posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're required to put in our
documents?

As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names required to cover
all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a MIB module?

Randy

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:37:14 -0500

> posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're 

The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust.  No author permissions
are needed.

> all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a 

See above.  In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly under RFC
3978, so they are less problematic than non-code text.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:52:20 +1300

Jorge,

I'm working on the assumption that once a contributor or a
contributor's assign has signed the license form in its
RFC5378 version, we can all submit drafts including that
contributor's earlier text without further ado. Is that correct?

    Brian

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:54:35 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:52 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: Randy Presuhn; IETF Discussion

That's right.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:56:51 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> Subject: RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
...
> The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust.  No author permissions

This is good news.

Who owns the oft-repeated
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

> 3978, so they are less problematic than non-code text.

I'm referring to the bits effectively required by the MIB doctors, e.g.:
   This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
   In particular, it defines a basic set of managed objects for Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP)-based management of ...

and
   For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
   Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
   RFC 3410 [RFC3410].

   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
   the Management Information Base or MIB.  MIB objects are generally
   accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
   Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
   Structure of Management Information (SMI).  This memo specifies a MIB
   module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
   RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
   [RFC2580].

and various incarnations of this stuff that appear in the text of RFCs
that happen to contain MIB modules, not the stuff that's in the MIB modules.
(Earlier versions of this were rather lengthy.)

Randy

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:07:24 -0500

> (Earlier versions of this were rather lengthy.)

I will check into this.  Ideally, all boilerplate would be owned by the
IETF Trust, but I am not aware that anyone has ever focused on this
material.  Technically, the copyright owner would be the author(s) who
wrote the first document that says those words.  However, the copyright
in such generic phrases is vestigial at best.  
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:30:35 +0100

> contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors.
If the Trust has those rights, it's licensing them to all participants 
under the same terms as post-5378 works.

               Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:30:14 +0100

> under the same terms as post-5378 works.

Not as far as I can see.  The Outgoing license from the Trust does not
include many of the rights required from contributors in Incoming.

For example, RFC 5378 section 5.3 d) says:

   d. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names which
      are included in the Contribution solely in connection with the
      reproduction, distribution, or publication of the Contribution and
      derivative works thereof as permitted by this Section 5.3,
      provided that when reproducing Contributions, trademark and
      service mark identifiers used in the Contribution, including TM
      and (R), will be preserved.

The 'Legal Provisions' document does not mention trademarks.  Thus, by
default, there is no grants of rights related to trademarks from the
IETF Trust to IETF participants.

If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains trademarked
words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have signed the
IETF Trust form if the document contains trademarks.  You need to
contact him anyway, to get permission to reproduce the trademark.

/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:31:24 +0100

>> contributor's earlier text without further ado. Is that correct?

How does that work?  The outgoing rights granted by the IETF Trust does
not include many of the rights required from contributors in Incoming.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:33:25 +0100

> in such generic phrases is vestigial at best. 
Jorge, would the fact that people have acted as if these phrases can be 
copied freely for the last 20 years create a presumption that the 
copyright holders (if any) have given permission for their free copying?

(I tracked the first sentence of the "Managed objects are accessed" 
phrase back to RFC 1065, August 1988; authors-of-record were Marshall 
Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that, of course.)

             Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:04:16 +0100

Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> Jorge, would the fact that people have acted as if these phrases can
> be copied freely for the last 20 years create a presumption that the

Didn't earlier IETF legal policies give permission to re-use these
phrases within the IETF standards process?

> Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that, of course.)

That date is before RFC 1310 which makes things more interesting.

Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 1989, when the
US signed the Berne convention.  According to:

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

1978 to 1 March 1989
Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years
In the public domain

Thus, the RFC 1065 document would now appear to be in the public domain,
since it does not contain a copyright notice, and assuming nobody
registered for a copyright on it within 5 years.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:07:26 +0100

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Not as far as I can see. 
You're right. I should have said "It should be licensing them", since 
the current text of the Trust's license says that it applies only to 
post-5378 works.
>  The Outgoing license from the Trust does not
That's by design. As John said so many times during the discussions: "we 
probably have to expand the rights granted to the Trust once, but we 
should make very, very sure that we don't have to do it again".
> contact him anyway, to get permission to reproduce the trademark.
I sure hope that's a bug (and one that, because of the separation of 
concerns, we can get fixed without spinning up a working group).

                    Harald (thankful to not be IPR chair any more, and 
being back to just having opinions)

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:36:59 -0500

> Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within  

I had forgotten that - the Trust Counsel should give a reading on this.

I think that a list needs to be maintained of RFC5378 compliant works.  
If RFCs published before
a certain date are all public domain, then that would save a lot of  
trouble, as they could all be added to the
list. (If they are PD, then others can modify them freely, and there  
are no rights to grant.)

> registered for a copyright on it within 5 years.

With deep apologies to Victor Hugo, I think that the combination of  
very long terms (life of the author + 70 years)
and no requirement for notice or registration has been an unmitigated  
disaster for the public good. This
is not the place to discuss that, though.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:41:43 -0500

[I trimmed the cc:s.  I assume the trustees are paying attention to
this, and also that WG Chairs are all subscribed to the general list.]

> rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF.

I don't think RFC 5378 requires the Contributor personally to get the
rights.  The Contributor instead is just asserting that any other
party that may have rights in the Contribution is also willing to
agree to the same terms:

   The Contributor is further deemed to have agreed that he/she has
   obtained the necessary permissions to enter into such an agreement
   from any party that the Contributor reasonably and personally knows
   may have rights in the Contribution, including, but not limited to,
   the Contributor's sponsor or employer.

If the other party has explicitly grantd such rights to the Trust,
then it seems to me the Contributor can assert that the necessary
permissions have been obtained.  Insert usual non-lawyer disclaimer
here.

A

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:51:14 -0500

--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 17:37 -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> See above.  In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly
> under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-code
> text.

Maybe I still don't fully understand what 5398 does, but, while
that broad licensing of MIB modules presumably permits the IETF
(and others) to work with them, it doesn't imply the transfers
to the Trust, and ability of the Trust to relicense, required by
5398, does it?  And, if not, the broad licensing of MIB modules
doesn't help a new author of a document that incorporates a MIB
module make  the assertions that 5398 requires, does it?  

If the answer is "no", then such an author would still have to
go back to the original Contributor(s) of the MIB module and
persuade them to generate the new license, just as he or she
would with any other older contributed text.   Right?

    john

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:13:13 -0500

> > Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 
> 1989, when  
> > the
> > Published without notice, and without subsequent 
> registration within  
> > 5 years
> > In the public domain
> 

Indeed -- I don't see a copyright notice in RFC 1065.  This may be a
useful approach for old RFCs that lack a copyright notice.  Does anyone
know when the ISOC copyright notice was first applied to RFCs?

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:20:55 -0800

[also "RE: where to send RFC 5378 license form"]

To: IETF TRUST

I have signed and faxed a copy of the "IETF Documents Non-Exclusive License"
to +1-703-326-9881. Not that my technical contributions actually matter, but
perhaps someone here will someday want to copy or create derivative works of
my words here.

As far as I can tell, if everyone here who ever contributed to an IETF
document signs these forms, then you can treat the arguments I've made here
about not needing copyright for industry standards as hypothetical and moot.
Having a very permissive copyright license to rely on is better than not
having one, even if (as I argue) in many cases a copyright license isn't
necessary in order to create a copy or derivative work of a functional
specification!

I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may not even be
necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most RFCs are joint
works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing:

"In the United States, unless they agree otherwise, each of the joint
authors may separately license a joint work--and all of its parts--without
the consent of any of the other joint authors, and every author must account
to the other authors for their share of the profits derived from the
license. Consult local law to determine whether one owner of a joint work
may license without the consent of the others or must account to the others
for his or her licensing revenue."

Given that IETF is non-profit, there almost certainly won't be profits here
to share. 

I'd appreciate hearing back from any lawyers on this list, particularly
outside the U.S., whether having *most IETF contributors (and their
employers!)* sign this form would, for all practical purposes, solve the
problem reported here and let us get on with our lives writing and updating
industry standards however we wish? Fortunately for us, if the living sign
we may not need the permission of deceased contributors after all, at least
for joint works.

I can't imagine that anyone fully committed to the "culture" of IETF would
refuse to sign such a license now, or as a way of reaffirming his or her
past commitment. I can't imagine anyone--particularly the companies
participating in IETF--who would resist signing such a license as a
precondition to participation in IETF standards-setting proceedings. But
maybe I'm wrong?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> John C Klensin
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:51 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge; Randy Presuhn; IETF Discussion

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:27:41 -0500

Larry - thank you for your contribution!
 
> for his or her licensing revenue."

The problem lies with collective works, rather than joint works.  In
some cases, the multiple authors of IETF documents have each made
distinct contributions (i.e., sections or distinct text) rather than
collaborating to produce joint text.  Unfortunately it is not possible,
in hindight, to determine whether works with multiple authors are joint
works or collective works.  
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:33:45 -0800

>know when the ISOC copyright notice was first applied to RFCs?

Probably some time after 1989, when the ISOC took over funding of the
RFC Editor.  I don't recall exactly, but it should not be hard to find out.

Bob Braden.

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:59 -0800

> works or collective works.

Hi Jorge,

Once again the standards world surprises me. I thought that IETF
RFCs--indeed any standards specifications developed by groups of cooperating
engineers--are inherently joint works. The notion that a single person
writes and owns the words he himself puts into a specification is very odd.
Is that notion a part of IETF culture? 

It is true that the best evidence of a joint work is a contract between the
joint authors declaring it to be so, and that otherwise a collective work is
generally assumed. What we lack are those contracts from the early days,
which is why the new form we're now signing is so good going forward. But
even in the past, in the case of IETF RFCs, weren't IETF contributors
expected to be active participants in joint creativity and inventiveness?
Could anyone here realistically deny that his or her IETF efforts were
joint?

Best regards,

/Larry

> From: Contreras, Jorge [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]; IETF discussion list
> Subject: RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenarys
> 
>

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:56:24 -0800

> RFC Editor.  I don't recall exactly, but it should not be hard to find out.

This is probably worth summarizing, so I just did a scan of the RFC archive:

1)  There is no copyright text in RFCs until:

> Network Working Group                                           M. Gahrns
> Request for Comments: 2221                                      Microsoft
> Category: Standards Track                                    October 1997
> 
>                          
> IMAP4 Login Referrals
...
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997).  All Rights Reserved.
...
> 10. Full Copyright Statement
> 
> 
>    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997).  All Rights Reserved.
> 
>    This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
>    others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
>    or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
>    andand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
>    kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
>    included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
>    document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
>    the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
>    Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
>    developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
>    copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
>    followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
>    English.
> 
>    The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
>    revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
> 
>    This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
>    "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
>    TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
>    BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
>    HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>    MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

2) In my view, the next change was the critical one, because it altered the 
ownership model, with authors being declared as having ownership rights (where 
my non-lawyers eyes read the earlier one as declaring ISOC as owning the rights, 
modulo the ones authors can't give away):

> Network Working Group                                         J. Cuellar
> Request for Comments: 3693                                    Siemens AG
> Category: Informational                                        J. Morris
>                                        Center for Democracy & Technology
>                                                              D. Mulligan
>                         Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
>                                                              J. Peterson
>                                                                  NeuStar
>                                                                  J. Polk
>                                                                    Cisco
>                                                            February 2004
> 
>                           
> Geopriv Requirements
...
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.
...
> 13. Full Copyright Statement
> 
> 
>    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
>    to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
>    except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
> 
>    This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
>    "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
>    REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
>    INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
>    IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
>    THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
>    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> 
> Intellectual Property
> 
>    The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
>    Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
>    to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
>    described in this document or the extent to which any license
>    under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
>    represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
>    such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to
>    rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>    Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
>    assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
>    attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
>    of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
>    specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
>    at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
> 
>    The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
>    any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
>    proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
>    to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the
>    IETF at [email-masked].

3) The next revision to this came with:

> Network Working Group                                        M. Munakata
> Request for Comments: 4715                                   S. Schubert
> Category: Informational                                          T. Ohba
>                                                                      NTT
>                                                            November 2006
> 
> 
>             
> The Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
> 
>                   
> Subaddress Encoding Type for tel URI
> 
> 
> Status of This Memo
> 
>    This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
>    not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
>    memo is unlimited.
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
...
> Full Copyright Statement
> 
>    Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
> 
>    This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
>    contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
>    retain all their rights.
> 
>    This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
>    "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
>    OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
>    AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
>    EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
>    THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
>    IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>    PURPOSE.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:58:01 -0500

Dave -- very useful -- thanks!! 

> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:56 PM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Cc: Contreras, Jorge
> Subject: History of RFC copyright text
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Braden wrote:

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:01:32 -0800

> works or collective works.  

Ignoring independent submissions, how is this distinction meaningful when the 
authors are operating as agents of an IETF working group?

For any IETF document, the fact that someone took lead on a particular bit of 
text makes it easy to miss the fact that authors *must* (and do) make 
modifications at the will of the working group.  By the time a working group 
document is issued, it has been massively changed in many small and large ways, 
according to tidbits of input from many different people.

Most standards groups do not assign author names to the document, possibly for 
this reason.

In the IETF, we've found listing the names of the primary contributors as 
useful, but I think that here it has resulted in a misleading view of who has 
been in control of the text.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:07:07 -0500

> 5398, does it?  

Yes it does -- see below

> And, if not, the broad licensing of MIB modules

My point was that code was already broadly licensed under the OLD
copyright rules in 3978, so the post-5378 contributor doesn't face the
same predicament when he/she re-uses pre-5378 code as when he/she
re-uses pre-5378 text (i.e., his/her warranty is TRUE when made with
respect to pre-5378 code fragments).  Here's the code license granted
under 3978:

      (E) to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute, modify and
          incorporate into other works, for any purpose (and not limited
          to use within the IETF Standards Process) any executable code
          or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such
          as MIB and PIB modules), 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:11:46 -0500

Dear Jorge;

> know when the ISOC copyright notice was first applied to RFCs?

Also do not forget that the US Government does not claim copyright.  
Were any RFCs written
by US Civil Servants ? Then their work is in the Public Domain.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:17:33 +0100

>           or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such

Those rights are only granted to 'the ISOC and the IETF', not to third
parties, see the paragraph above (E):

   a. 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 the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
      property rights in the Contribution:

Third parties get no rights under RFC 3978.

/Simon

---

From: "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:05:34 -0500

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
> contact him anyway, to get permission to reproduce the trademark.

You should consult an attorney but, as far as I know, at least in the
US, there is no magic permission needed to "reproduce" a trademark.
Usually trademarks are to indicate the source of a product or service
and as long as you don't mislead people about that, you are fine.

Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:19:35 +0100

> and as long as you don't mislead people about that, you are fine.

Then what use does section 3.4 of RFC 5378 serve?

3.4.  Rights to Use Trademarks

   Contributors may wish to seek trademark or service mark protection on
   any terms that are coined or used in their Contributions.  The IETF
   makes no judgment about the validity of any such trademark rights.
   However, the IETF requires each Contributor, under the licenses
   described in Section 5.3 below, to grant the IETF Trust a perpetual
   license to use any such trademarks or service marks solely in
   exercising rights to reproduce, publish, discuss, and modify the IETF
   Contribution.  This license does not authorize the IETF or others to
   use any trademark or service mark in connection with any product or
   service offering.

It was co-authored by the IETF attorney, so I suspect it is intended to
serve some purpose.

If it serves a purpose, contributors needs to get the necessary right
and be able to transfer it to the IETF Trust in order to submit a
contribution.  As far as I understand, that would involve talking with
the old contributor if trademarks are involved.

/Simon

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:32:12 -0500

> the old contributor if trademarks are involved.

For background, the trademark license was included in RFC 3978 because
someone was concerned about Contributors who submitted documents to IETF
for standards-track use and included trademarked product names in them.
The IETF wanted to ensure that the IETF process would not be hindered by
the Contributor, and also wanted to ensure that the trademarks were
identified so that implementers would not be surprised by the trademark
owner's claim after a standard was adopted.  

While it's true that trademark *infringement* requires an infringing use
(i.e., use on a product or service), and that IETF would likely not be
engaged in such an infringing use, the US also gives owners of "famous"
marks the ability to sue for trademark "dilution", which does not
require an infringing use.  To be absolutely safe, the IETF has
requested the trademark license to avoid any infringement or dilution
suit.

This being said, for the sake of completeness, the Contributor License
should probably include both trademark and copyright grants (thanks to
Simon for identifying this).  However, given that RFC 3978 includes the
same trademark license as 5378, the issue only exists for pre-3978
documents.  Moreover, RFC 2026 requires identification (via IPR
disclosure) of any IPR rights relating to Contributions, which
technically would include trademarks.  If a Contributor did not identify
the relevant trademarks in an IPR disclosure (a rare occurrence), then
one would question the enforceability of those trademarks against IETF.
Pre-2026 IPR policies such as those contained in RFC 1602 and 1310
include wording relating to rights that could also include trademarks.

Thus, I think that including a trademark grant in the Contributor
License would be an improvement, but don't view this as a large issue in
any case.