Subject: IANA-maintained MIB copyright question

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:55:43 -0800

Hi,

  RFC 3978 specifies an additional copyright notice for
IANA-maintained MIB modules:

         "Copyright (C) The Internet Society <year>.  The initial
         version of this MIB module was published in RFC XXXX; for full
         legal notices see the RFC itself.  Supplementary information
         may be available at:
         http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html."

The ianamib.html document hasn't been updated since it was created in
2003, but when pondering how to update it I had a few questions:

1. Can it have a date in it?  You can't claim a 2007 copyright on
something that you haven't updated since 2003 (right?) and you can't
claim a 2003 copyright on something that didn't exist in 2003 (right?)
so neither 2003 nor 2007 can be correct.

2. Should it be updated to mention the IETF Trust?

3. What is the basis for this grant of rights?  It's my understanding
that the ipr wg has consensus that the IETF Trust copyright statement
applies to the boilerplate only.  The IANA-maintained MIB modules have
no boilerplate, only the MIB module itself.  Is there any hook on
which to hang the Internet Society/IETF Trust's grant of rights?

Thanks,
  Bill

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:51:42 +0100

> so neither 2003 nor 2007 can be correct.

I'm waiting for someone with a legal education to answer that,
but I think it should refer to (year of publication)

> 2. Should it be updated to mention the IETF Trust?

yes. In fact the Trust needs to check the update when it comes.
> which to hang the Internet Society/IETF Trust's grant of rights?

Actually the Trust's rights refer to the derivative work done in
the IETF, not just to the boilerplate, as I understand things. So if
derivative work is done outside the IETF, it isn't ours.

    Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:25:57 +0100

My immediate reaction is that ianamib.html should be an ION.
That would solve the dating and updating issue.

I've got no idea what the right text for the (2003) should be; I suspect 
(<year>) is most reasonable.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:48:01 +0100

I believe Jorge has recommended (2003-2007), which would
require an annual update.

I fear it can't be an ION for the simple reason that the
existing URL is embedded in the MIBs concerned. And I
think in the end it's an operational detail that the
Trust and IASA should take care of.

    Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:17:17 -0800

Brian - URL's in MIB's are probably not just code but also trademarks per 
the use-standard set in the US Ninth Circuit's Sex.COM ruling. That means 
that reprinting them under a creative commons of some type is not 
acceptable - you need both the trademark conveyance and the reprinting 
rights and they are not the same.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:33:43 -0800

--On 29. januar 2007 09:48 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> existing URL is embedded in the MIBs concerned.

Not logical. The MIBs don't say anything about what's at the other end of 
that URL.
It could be a pointer to an ION as easily as it could be any other web 
page. (And if the ION experiment is deemed a failure, we just point the 
pointer somewhere else).

> And I

Agreed.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:24:51 -0800

The dont have to the URL is what is a protected marque.

Todd