Subject: Re: #1515: Incoming 5.6: "Contributor" used with 2 meanings

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:02:06 +1300

>> Section 5.6 says:
>>
>>    With respect to each Contribution, each Contributor represents that
>>    to the best of his or her knowledge and ability:
>>
>>    a. The Contribution properly acknowledges all major Contributors. A
>>       major Contributor is any person who has materially or
>>       substantially contributed to the Contribution.
>>
>> There is a corner case here.  If someone who didn't submit a
>> Contribution did substantially contribute to the Contribution, is she a
>> Contributor or not?  (major or otherwise)

Maybe this should be rewritten like this:

    With respect to each Contribution, each Contributor represents that
    to the best of his or her knowledge and ability:

    a. The Contribution properly acknowledges all Indirect Contributors. An
       Indirect Contributor is any person who has materially or
       substantially contributed to the Contribution without being
       personally involved in its submission to the IETF.

However, I'd like to hear from counsel whether we should say anything
about rights of Indirect Contributors.

     Brian

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

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:27:14 -0800

Brian - while I understand the need to drag ones feet kicking and screaming 
into the future, we need to just bite the bullet - address a competent IP 
process with real delimiting and real liability limiting language.

The IP transfer process thus needs to be rock-solid and it has to be strong 
enough so that the relying parties know where to formally start and aim 
their diligence. This is further impacted by the IETF release which prevents 
the recalling of the IP so its even more important that the IETF's IP 
conveyance process be beyond question.

So how about this:

=============

With respect to each Contribution, each Contributor represents that they 
assume all liability for the IETF's publication of this Intellectual 
Property; further that

    a. The contributors represent they own, control or represent the IP 
interest's of their sponsor's in
        submitting this Intellectual Properties to the IETF for publication; 
further that
    b. The Contribution properly acknowledges all Direct and Indirect 
Contributors per the US Copyright Act's requirements.

       Definitions:
       An Indirect Contributor is any person who has materially or
      substantially contributed to the Contribution without being
      personally involved in its submission to the IETF.

       A Direct Contributor is an individual working significantly on
       the vetting of any Intellectual Property within the IETF
       Standards Workflow, or an individual participating in the
       core genesis of said Intellectual Property(ies).

       The IETF Vetting Process includes the detailed analysis,
        review, design modeling, and then commentary inside
        the IETF's Standards Workflow and Process. Casual
        commentary is not considered as participating in the
        formal vetting which is the key component of the IETF
        Consensus-Based Standard's Process.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:57:29 +0100

> about rights of Indirect Contributors.

That solves the moral attribution issue better, thanks.

The economical rights are unclear, though, especially under the
work-for-hire situation.

The copyright on text/code written by the Indirect Contributor may be
owned by a company or organization.  How are the rights to such material
released to the IETF?

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:30:45 +0100

> owned by a company or organization.  How are the rights to such material
In the same way as the release of rights to text/code written by the 
Direct Contributor:
We believe the Direct Contributor's statement that he has the right to 
grant that license.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:54:55 -0800

Harald - that description is one of an intentionally weak transfer process
and its the WG Chair's responsibity to see that this WG's actions meet all
legal requirements, this is not a technical thing that is being vetted its
the contractual structure for participation in the IETF and that brings
liability into the mix (whether you like it or not).

More inline below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: #1515: Incoming 5.6: "Contributor" used with 2 meanings

> We believe the Direct Contributor's statement that he has the right to

IETF takes responsibility for having placed an incompetent process in place
---------------------
Then the IETF takes the responsibility for believing a 'piece of submitted 
email without any authentication or more than the assertion of the 
submitter'. My feeling is that this pretty clearly makes the IETF 
'responsible' then when it is lied to because the IPR rights process assures 
to those other parties that the IETF's diligence is sufficient when its not. 
Again that's the case whether you like it or not Harald.

Secrety negotiations create another liability
---------------------
This has evidently already happened and it was resolved by a secret 
negotiation between the IETF's counsel and the submitters. The problem is 
that this secret negotiation to get the original rights properly submitted 
constitutes an act of Fraud by the IETF against those other parties in that 
WG who would have damage claims against the IETF for its screwing up the IP 
transfer and then falsely representing to the other WG members and their 
sponsor's that the legal transfer of the IP was perfect and complete...

Sorry it is what it is.

Opens another set of claims - this time against other WG members
--------------------
This also opens another set of claims against not the IETF but the other 
sponsor's and WG member's involved. As to how, simply ask those Sponsor's 
what they require when they license software or IP in any form and whether 
they would allow their sponsored parties to work on with imperfect IP 
transfers...

Especially we should ask the Sponsor's that "if there are potentially claims 
against their derivatives from using IETF protocols when the actions of the 
IETF are intentionally negligent in their operations whether they would 
continue to allow participation in any form in the IETF???" - I am betting 
the answer is NO.

Remember also that since its this WG who is place this stupidity in place, 
and that no other IETF members are being asked about this, or whether their 
sponsor's will allow them to participate in this, there is an informed 
consent issue which hamstrings that any deficiencies that occur in the legal 
framework come right back to this group and its members and their sponsors 
for 'putting in place' as well as those members of the IESG who supported 
the elevation of this into a standards or BCP operating practice.

Sorry its just the way it is AFAICT.

Extra-Liabilities
-------------------
But - hey - there is another issue. That being whether the Sponsor's would 
have allowed their agents to work on a protocol that was impacted as such. 
In as much its my bet that being lied to like this also opens EVERY OTHER 
MEMBER of the WG to litigation as well. The idea that they would have agreed 
to 'work on that protocol' when the IPR were being withheld is a serious 
flaw in the IETF's wetdream about whether a simple email release works.

Proof?
-------
The funny part of this is when an officer of the IETF admits that this has
already happened and it was negotiated to a release state which was never
disclosed to those sponsor's involved. The IETF is creating a public record
that it essentially "Hid" that it negotiated a settlement for IP that it
fraudulently misrepresented as its own property to coerce those other
sponsor's to allow their sponsored parties to participate.

That's clearly a fraud which benefits the IETF alone and one which make the
IETF and the management of the IETF guilty of IP frauds one would think
under any number of existing US Court precedents Harlad.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:54:34 +0100

>       personally involved in its submission to the IETF.
I suggest that we adopt this as a resolution of #1515. "Legal review" is 
already an item on the list.

                     Harald

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:12:13 +0100

The idea of rights "transfer" for contribution is outside the scope of 
this WG.

The method that the IETF has used is licensing, and there is WG 
consensus that we will continue to use that method.

Further atttempts by the same individual to raise the issue of 
"transfer" will result in a suspension for offtopic posting.