Subject: URLs and the location boilerplate

From: "Bede B. McCall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:57:44 -0400 (EDT)

The current draft proposes making things easier for the IETF by having
authors cut-and-paste pieces of copyright boilerplate obtained from a
document at some URL.  This is an excellent idea -- provided it's
understood by all that the URL itself is NEVER to be embedded in any
document other than the IETF instructions for authors.  The reasons
for not mentioning the URL in any documents seem obvious, but can be
summed up: the URL and/or its referent can and will change over time,
but the document and the constraints under which it is originally
published will not.

Depending on the prevailing level of paranoia about the IETF itself,
it may be worth considering using a URL that is controlled by a
neutral third party.  I'm not convinced this is necessary, though,
and it could lead to a gaggle of ad hoc, informal "quid pro quo"
steward/guardianship relationships that might be very hard to maintain
over time.

Using a different meaning of "location", I think placing the copyright
text in a fixed location within drafts and RFCs is also a good idea
because, well, it's *boilerplate*.  Whether copyright information
always goes at the very beginning or at the very end is a matter of
taste or tradition, but it should always be one or the other.
Personally, I think using a closing section for detailed IETF
copyright boilerplate (as in 5.2.1 of the draft) and using
fixed-format endnotes for all non-IETF copyrights and/or author
statements about their individual copyrights would preserve document
clarity and should make automated boilerplate parsing easier.

-- 
Bede McCall

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

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:10:31 -0400

On 7/10/06, Bede B. McCall <[email-masked]> wrote:
> document at some URL.

The boilerplate has always been provided in a collected form at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt .  The change makes it
easier for the ipr WG (or the IETF as a whole) to *update* the
boilerplate, since it doesn't have to publish a BCP each time, but
doesn't make things easier for authors.

  Bill

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:42:39 -0700

There is potentially an issue with reliance on Internet Access for these
rights to be reviewed. To be fully self contained the documents have to be
all-inclusive.

Todd Glassey.

---

From: "Bede B. McCall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:53:57 -0400 (EDT)

Todd, could you expand on what you mean a little?  I think we're
saying the same thing and citing different reasons -- that copyright
boilerplate needs to be embedded in the text of the document, not
referenced from it via a URL.

--Bede

   From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
   Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:42:39 -0700

   There is potentially an issue with reliance on Internet Access for
   these rights to be reviewed. To be fully self contained the
   documents have to be all-inclusive.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:12:40 -0700

Bede - if the IETF wants these documents to be totally republishable - the
question is whether those rights can be printed in a form that is not
accessible to those that use them. My point is not everyone has access to
the Internet... especially for any intent by the IETF that those documents
be useful outside of the Internet.

What I mean, and perhaps Rosen-San can answer this as to whether there needs
to be some for-sure copy of the CR rules and license that is available. If
the individual is reprinting these for their own documentation purposes, one
would think there was a need to disclose that. For instance if Sun or anyone
else was to print those documents on paper and distribute them what about
also needing to print and distribute all the specific licensing documents
per that release.

---

The other is also another issue and that is which revision of which document
is  the one that the Client used to create the agreement with the IETF to
vet any IP submitted. This is IMHO a real concern since IETF documents
generally don't have "identifying revision numbers" making it really hard to
specify a whole contract in one document (Doc B rev 1, doc B rev 3.5, doc
and Doc C rev 20.43) See what I mean - so the idea is that if the entirety
of the release language is not properly disclosed then its ineffective, or
one would think.

Also - there is the issue of what to do about 'selection of law' in
contracts. What is to stop me from altering the copyright so that it reads
from a previous version of the documents published under the Any and All
uses Forever clause since RFC2026 technically is still a viable document
until such time as the IETF formally pulls its use license.

This is actually worth looking at since it implies that changes in the
release license boilerplate are needed.

Todd