Subject: RE: Resolution of tickets 1197, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

From: "John Calhoon \(LCA\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:57:20 -0800

Harald,

I agree with the resolutions noted below

John Calhoon

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Resolution of tickets 1197, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

After discussing with legal counsel, and reviewing the list with the WG 
at the IETF meeting, I suggest the following resolution of these issues 
raised by Todd Glassey:

#1197: How is intellectual property transferred or licensed to the IETF?
- There is no assignment of copyright. There is a non-exclusive license.
- Such a license does not require an ink signature.
- The IETF does not get any rights to any patents.

#1240: Legal review of BCP 78 3.3 needed?
This section was extensively reviewed by multiple lawyers before RFC 
publication. No more review is needed.

#1241: Does BCP 78 3.3.a(e) give away all rights to the IP involved?
Patent rights are not affected by BCP 78 3.3.a(E). Furthermore, this 
section applies only to "code".
So the answer is "no".

#1242: Do BCPs require different IPR procedures than other RFCs?
The IETF defines what an IETF BCP is and how BCPs are supposed to be 
handled.
There has been no determination in the IETF that there is a reason to 
handle IETF BCPs different from other documents.

#1243: What are the qualifications of the Trustees of the IETF Trust?
Their sole required qualification is that they are members of the IAOC, 
as defined in BCP 101.

#1244: How is oversight and respect going to be enforced?
There are documented IETF processes, including the appeals process from 
RFC 2026.
This is not an IPR issue.

Unless we hear comments from other participants than Todd before March 
31, 2006 (one week from today), the chairs will close these issues as 
needing no further attention from the IPR WG. Attempts to reopen these 
issues without supplying new relevant information after this date will 
be treated as an offtopic posting.

Regarding #1239: "Understanding intent of participants", this is 
awaiting a clarification of terminology from the lawyer.

                         Harald, for the IPR WG chairs.

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

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