Subject: Question about timeline

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:32:05 +0100

Will the -incoming document be approved before the IASA have drafted
and approved the legal text that will be used for documents,
presumably based on the approved and published -outgoing document?

I believe approval of -incoming must wait until the outgoing rights
from the IETF Trust to third parties are in place and up and running.
Otherwise, as far as I can tell, third parties (including RFC mirrors)
will have no rights to even distribute unmodified copies of documents
published under the new rules in -incoming.

/Simon

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

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:42:49 -0400

If we currently do not get from authors all the rights we want to
grant, then the outgoing rights cannot be granted until we have the
right to grant those rights. 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Question about timeline
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:47:19 +0100

Obviously.  My point is that -incoming shouldn't be approved until
there is a working process to give third parties rights according to
whatever is in -outgoing.  Publishing the documents at the same time
doesn't meet that objective -- rights are not granted to third parties
until the IASA reads -outgoing and writes legal text and publish it.

/Simon

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:11:38 +0100

Simon Josefsson wrote:

> My point is that -incoming shouldn't be approved until there is a
> working process to give third parties rights according to whatever
> is in -outgoing.  Publishing the documents at the same time doesn't
> meet that objective -- rights are not granted to third parties

I don't get this, your article started with "obviously":

Obviously outgoing rights MUST be a subset of incoming rights -
or as IIRC Brian put it you can't give away what you don't have.

So let's say some "incoming" memo covering the "outgoing" ideas
is approved in May.  Then the trust starts to collect "incoming"
contributions in May (or after new boilerplates guarantee that
contributors know that the trust does this).

At the same time or later "outgoing" is approved.  Again later
the trust creates some magic formulae trying to implement the
"outgoing" rules.  Then they could wait two months just to see
what happens (and for the appeal timeout).

After that they can state that anything they've collected since
May (with sufficient "incoming" rights) is covered by the new
magic formulae implementing "outgoing".

Only _older_ contributions could have insufficient "incoming"
rights.  Apparently we arrived at different conclusions about
the timing (IANAL etc., you know the drill... :-)

Frank

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:30:09 +0100

> what happens (and for the appeal timeout).

My point is that during this time, between when incoming is approved
and when the legal text drafted based on outgoing is actually put into
legal force, third parties have no rights to even distribute any
document that the IETF approve.  That seems sub-optimal to me.

> magic formulae implementing "outgoing".

Right.

/Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:08:09 -0700

I brought this UP years (as in 1.5 to 2) ago... Its because there is no 
simultaneous republication and as such there is no possible way to document 
that the IETF is not the recipient of the publication rights and all 
commercial value therein for some period of time while it then reconveys 
those same rights to the IETF's new Trust.

This is exactly the problem I brought up. That the IETF's outgoing 
licensening doesn't kick into effect until the IETF or ISOC/IESG actually 
republishes the document. Until such time the document is controlled based 
solely on the submission contract  between the Relying Party (*the 
submitter) and the IETF Editor's Desk.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:44:03 -0700

David - there are many more implications than just that herein. What you are 
coming to is that the awarding or conveyance of rights into the IETF is a 
separate function from the IETF's republication of the works under its 
outgoing rights model.

The problem is much larger than just rights. What you have come to is 
another flaw in BCP78 in how it absorbs or "plays the Borg" in assimilating 
the IP sent in. For instance what happens to the rights in IP's which are 
not republished and redistributed by the IETF?

Todd

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:06:53 +0100

I think it will be enough to put trigger clauses in both documents stating
that they become effective at the instant that the Trust publishes its license.

     Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:17:32 +0100

> that they become effective at the instant that the Trust publishes its license.

Yes, that would make sense.  Great.

I'm tagging this e-mail with 'ISSUE:', as Harald requested, to keep
track of this concern, so that the documents are updated accordingly.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:37:29 -0700

Frank - I think its possible you are mistaken... let me illustrate.

For one thing the current Contributor's assignment is specific to those IP's 
they are submitting in their filing, and because of this it is flawed ***

The IETF's vetting process takes that original license and increases and 
refines that IP into a derivative offering. It is the licensing of that 
derivative which is the issue here one would think. The Derivative in fact 
may after weeks of vetting actually exclude much of the original IP in some 
instances so this is actually less of an issue than it seems.

The licensing issues are simple -

    1)    Original Submissions and their Derivative (post vetting) Works 
in-line with the original IP.

All works coming into the IETF must allow for Public Vetting of those IP's 
and Derivative Works produced along the IETF Process Guidelines. This grant 
must allow the IETF to create its work product and to distribute the media 
per the IETF's official policy.

    2)    Derivative Works that evolve those IP's or exclude it after 
vetting.

All works that are vetted through the List and Meeting Process such that a 
new and identifiable IP entity is created. This is a new post-vetting IP 
Derivative which the original owner no longer holds title to. That is 
because it was vetted through the group and the group members agreed that 
the IETF and not the Original Owner would hold rights to said same work 
product.

    3)    The reprinting rights for the RFC's that are produced along the 
'ride' as it were.

This is what it is ...

    4)    The license for the Final Standard as issued by the IESG/ISOC.

And this also is what it is.

*** FLAWED:

What I mean by flawed is that any product, IP or otherwise that is formally 
vetted by the members of a WG is the property of those members per se and 
not the original owner anymore as far as I can tell. There is NO "I am 
providing free Engineering Services" agreement to participate in the WG's 
and as such those owners either grant their rights to the IETF or they still 
own them.

That said then the derivative works are already the property of the IETF and 
the original holder of those property rights is no longer the sole owner.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Question about timeline

> Obviously outgoing rights MUST be a subset of incoming rights -

No, actually  they can be a superset of those rights ... or as limited as 
being exactly equal to the incoming rights.

The superset would be derivative rights.