Subject: boilerplate for IPR

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:48:10 -0500

A couple of documents that have come before the IESG recently have
shown that there is some confusion about the proper copyright notice
that I-Ds should have.  We propose adding language to the "Submissions"
document to clarify the three cases:  full IETF rights, no derivative
works, and "not an RFC".  The first is mandatory for all standards-track
documents.  The second form may be used when issuing a non-IETF
document as an I-D in preparation for publishing it as an Informational
RFC, for example when publishing the output of another standards
body, or when publishing a proprietary protocol.  The third form
may be appropriate for an I-D that contains background and educational
documents for working group discussion, but it cannot be used in
any I-D intended to be published as an RFC, because it does not
grant rights sufficient to allow such publication.

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:06:54 -0800

I believe the term "no derivative works" in the second case is a misnomer.
As Jorge said, it's inconsistent with the rights granted under the general 
copyright notice, and the published RFC can be considered a derived work 
from the internet-draft.

I'd suggest changing the second version to saying that "the right to issue 
revised versions of this document is not granted" - I believe that this is 
what is usually intended; I think people using this boilerplate usually 
don't mind the preparation of derivative works that comment on the 
document, make it available in other languages or make extracts to assist 
in usage of the technology (such as MIBs), as described in the full 
copyright notice.

                       Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:23:03 +0100

I think it's incorrect that boilerplate #2 is applicable to
Infromationals-to-be (writing as a not-a-lawyer). Certainly I always
advise my colleagues to get managerial approval for boilerplate #1 if 
they are aiming even at Informational RFC publication, exactly
because of the ISOC copyright notice.

If that is so, I don't see any need to change boilerplate #2. I
suspect that "derivative works" is the legalese for "revised version"
anyway.

Maybe the simplest solution is to abolish boilerplate #2. Make
people decide if they're in or they're out. 

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:45:46 +0100

I'd like to revise this. If the only copyright notice
available is that in RFC 2026, what I said makes sense.
But draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt defines
two alternative copyright texts, and for the second
of those, boilerplate #2 is suitable.

So, if we reach consensus on this draft, we still need
all three boilerplates. 

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:52:57 -0500 (EST)

> of those, boilerplate #2 is suitable.

just to be clear - this is current practice - the 2nd copyright
form was developed a number of years ago to be used on those RFCs
where derivative rights were not included - it had not been 
documented but recient discussions remined me that it existed and
should be documented

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:02:46 +0000

> suspect that "derivative works" is the legalese for "revised version"

it's not - the ISOC copyright notice talks about derived works that are 
commentaries on the RFC, translations of the RFC or extracts from the RFC.
That's what caused me to think there was a problem - we're either wrong or 
inconsistent.

                 Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:18:06 +0100

Harald, the inconsistency disappeared when I learned that we
already use a different (C) notice for non-IETF-owned
Informationals. See my last exchange with Scott.

   Brian