gmane.ietf.ipr

Re: Is the IETF / Debian discussion resolved?

todd glassey — 2012-02-27T17:36:21

i.e.

1) The IETF is passing the IP through under the constraints it was 
submitted by.

2)Per Section "C" the Trust is OKing the use of IP outside of the 
controlled mechanisms that the IETF created it (laughingly too) under. 
This is simply not legal.

The IETF cannot set aside the publication of copyrighted documents not 
being used directly in the research it performs. Once performed - the 
research is done meaning that the continuous need to breach those 
previous copyright is also gone.

So the real issue is whether the IETF is willing to defend its ability 
to license others to be able to set (C) and other IP protection 
provisions aside in furtherance of the IETF's goals (which seem to be to 
destroy the World's IP Protection Schemas IMHO).

Re: Is the IETF / Debian discussion resolved?

Marshall Eubanks — 2012-02-27T16:37:20

And, also cc the IETF Trust.

Regards
Marshall

Re: Is the IETF / Debian discussion resolved?

Marshall Eubanks — 2012-02-27T16:35:43

The License the IETF Trust provides all users of RFCs (or I-Ds). From
the Trust Legal Provisions (version 4.0, Section 3)
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf

c.Licenses For Use Outside the IETF Standards Process. In addition to
the rights granted with respect to Code Components described in
Section 4 below, the IETF Trust hereby grants to each person who
wishes to exercise such rights, to the greatest extent that it is
permitted to do so, a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide right and
license under all copyrights and rights of authors:

i.to copy, publish, display and distribute IETF Contributions and
IETF Documents in full and without modification,
ii.to translate IETF Contributions and IETF Documents into languages
other than English, and to copy, publish, display and distribute such
translated IETF Contributions and IETF Documents in full and without
modification,
iii.to copy, publish, display and distribute unmodified portions of
IETF Contributions and IETF Documents and translations thereof,
provided that:
(x)each such portion is clearly attributed to IETF and identifies the
RFC or other IETF Document or IETF Contribution from which it is
taken,
(y)all IETF legends, legal notices and indications of authorship
contained in the original IETF RFC must also be included where any
substantial portion of the text of an IETF RFC, and in any event where
more than one-fifth of such text, is reproduced in a single document
or series of related documents.

So, note

- anyone can publish a full RFC, as is.

- anyone can publish a small section of an IETF RFC, as is.

- anyone can publish a big piece of an IETF RFC, with various
requirements about adding boilerplate.

None of this has apparently changed much since the discussion in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=92810

Note that the TLP allows for code components, in 4.c

c.License.In addition to the licenses granted under Section 3,
unless one of the legends contained in Section 6.c.i or 6.c.ii is
included in an IETF Document containing Code Components, such Code
Components are also licensed to each person who wishes to receive such
a license on the terms of the “Simplified BSD License", as described
below. If a licensee elects to apply the BSD License to a Code
Component, then the additional licenses and restrictions set forth in
Section 3 and elsewhere in these Legal Provisions shall not apply
thereto. Note that this license is specifically offered for IETF
Documents and may not be available for Alternate Stream documents. See
Section 8 for licensing information for the appropriate stream.

The BSD license is specifically allowed for under the DFSG.

Note : These criteria were set out in RFC 5378. For RFCs prior to
5378, you are also going to have to ask the authors for permission.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

Re: Is the IETF / Debian discussion resolved?

Simon Josefsson — 2012-02-27T15:19:34

mån 2012-02-27 klockan 16:10 +0100 skrev Thomas Koch:

Hi.  The IETF considered the problem but, alas, the decision was to
continue to publish RFCs under a non-free license.


I believe that is the correct interpretation.

/Simon


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

todd glassey — 2012-02-10T16:33:51

Thanks Stephan, in the interest of disclosure and transparency I have
posted these as IPR Notices to the IPR List so that there is now formal
record in the IPR Disclosure tree of these official public policies.


Todd Glassey

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

John C Klensin — 2012-02-10T00:54:16


--On Thursday, February 09, 2012 16:50 -0500 Scott Brim
<scott.brim< at >gmail.com> wrote:


Yes, I know.  I think that is the right principle even though it
is possible that the language may be in need of tuning at this
stage.  The differences between the above and what I was
suggesting might be reasonable now were:

* More or less promising a WG that a certain cluster of terms
would cause the IESG to examine whether they had discussed the
licensing conditions and how they were likely to relate to
deployment and use and, conversely, more or less promising them
that anything else was likely to cause them to be forced to
document the fact that they had discussed the issue.  In
principle, our model today isn't far from that.  In practice...
well, the practice may not completely match the principle and
more clarity about this wouldn't be bad.

* While I believe the general principle was worth preserving, we
might consider tightening/narrowing the statement of preference
if that made sense now.

* And I'd like to start pushing back on reciprocal protective
clauses that are so broad that they could impede willingness to
use the technology.  In a way, that is no different from any
other encumbrance and the same rules should apply.  In practice,
we have tended to treat "FRAND as along as you promise to not
challenge any of our patents, IETF-related or not" as if it were
FRAND.   They are not the same -- and how different they are
depends on just what the supposedly-defensive reciprocity
provisions actually say.

    john

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

todd glassey — 2012-02-10T00:24:44


This fails to take into account us Law and Court precedent on
"intentionally infringing on anothers IP" and that is a serious issue.

The latest disclosure from the Chair about the clandestine meeting with
a formal legal representative of a major Sponsor is a serious issue.

It is clandestine because the content of that conversation and the
identity of the party is critical to maintaining open and disclosed
participation in any joint-development effort.

The really big problem is that the Chair for whatever reason “doesn’t
think it is out of line to have an ex parte meeting with a ‘legal
representative of a sponsor’ that is not formally disclosed to all other
interested and impacted parties.

From a ethical standpoint this action and the cavalier attitude to its
importance is a key reason why this management team is incompetent to
run this “open and fair” Global Standards Organization and in this
refusal I formally challenge the Chair to disclose the document or
resign immediately since you will be taking a stance as the agent of
that ‘major sponsor’ and no longer be independent or accountable, but
rather serve as a partner for some undisclosed action.

I suggest this is a real problem and I call for a formal hearing before
the IESG as to the ethical standing of the Chair.

T.

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Scott Brim — 2012-02-09T21:50:47

RFC 3979 section 8:

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion
   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
   technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
   or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Donald Eastlake — 2012-02-09T21:42:06

Or accept an encumbrance that will expire "soon" or ...

Donald

On Thursday, February 9, 2012, John C Klensin <john-ietf< at >jck.com> wrote:

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Steven Bellovin — 2012-02-09T19:47:21

On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:41 52PM, Scott Brim wrote:

As I said, folks should read past discussions before resurrecting an idea
that was rejected way back when.  The world has changed a lot and old
answers may no longer be valid -- but they may be.

--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Brian E Carpenter — 2012-02-09T19:46:23

Stricltly personal +1 to all of John's points.

    Brian

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Scott Brim — 2012-02-09T19:41:52

"Support" certainly but there was enough pushback that the IETF
couldn't take responsibility for doing so.  It's a new world, one
could try again, but be sure that the IETF's mission is served, not
(just) a particular faction of participants.

Re: Fwd: ETSI patent licence rules

todd glassey — 2012-02-09T19:19:55

Bummer...  strongly suggest you have the IETF's counsel contact me on
this since I am about to file a formal complaint now.

This is NOT a joke Russ.

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

todd glassey — 2012-02-09T19:10:56


The problem comes in the intentional design of technology which uses an
encumbered technology base or relies on materials which the IETF knows
are controlled and which will not be licensed under IETF acceptable terms.

I agree to an extent. The real process should probably stop any WG
members initiative which is noticed as being tied to an existing IPR
disclosure unless the IETF wants to litigate that itself. What I mean is
that there is a constructive responsibility for IETF members to
do-no-damage and its a real one.

Todd

Fwd: ETSI patent licence rules

Russ Housley — 2012-02-09T19:08:23

I do not agree with your assessment of the situation.

Russ

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

todd glassey — 2012-02-09T19:01:17

We need the name of the vendor here Russ... and now - no delays, no
games, no more IETF hidden-agenda meetings.

This private communications to the chair of a Global Standards Org is an
outrage as a corporate entity. It forms a commercial solicitation and
MUST be disclosed.

Sorry...

Todd

 He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free
commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs.  I indicated
that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on
parties that do not participate in the standards making process.  This
idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further.

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

John C Klensin — 2012-02-09T18:54:32


--On Thursday, February 09, 2012 13:41 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley< at >vigilsec.com> wrote:


Russ,

(strictly personal opinion...)

Remember the RSA issue and a few other things that contributed
to shaping IETF's current policy, I would be opposed to a change
that prevented something from moving forward on the standards
track unless it came with some particular form of license or
license commitment.  I think the ability of a WG to accept a
restricted/ encumbered technology if it sees the issue as
important and the technology as clearly superior to the
alternatives is one of our strengths.

On the other hand, I would see no problem and some advantages to
the IETF saying "we will permit any license you like as long as
you clearly disclose it but strongly prefer a royalty-free
commitment  for any essential patent(s) for anything on the
standards track".  If the IESG then decided to institutionalize
that preference by telling WGs that they would be required to
give a lot of scrutiny to anything more restrictive than that, I
wouldn't see that as a problem either.

All of that said, and with due respect to the Apple campaign, I
share what I think is Harald's view that licensing statements
that are so protective that the use of any IETF technology in
which a particular company has an interest effectively prevents
asserting any patent claim --for anything and of any type--
against that company is a more significant problem than whether
there is a royality-free commitment or not.  So, if we are going
to adopt a "preferred" licensing form, I'd like to see that
pushed toward, e.g., "no defensive provisions applicable to
anything other than other patents covered by the same standard".

    john

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Marshall Eubanks — 2012-02-09T18:51:48

I would like to see an actual proposal before I commented further. I
suspect that there would be some details here....

Regards
Marshall

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

todd glassey — 2012-02-09T18:49:45

Yes of course since the IETF changed from a trailing edge practice to a
leading edge practice. But the real issue is what happens to parties
when they intentionally implement code or practices or for that matter
standards when proper IPR notices are already on file - especially those
which say "No IETF, you weasels don't get this IP for free"...

The real issue is whether there is damage beyond civil here. My take is
that the intent in this group is to create IP anarchy and it needs to be
spanked and spanked hard.

Todd

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Steven Bellovin — 2012-02-09T18:47:03

On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:41 08PM, Russ Housley wrote:



There was certainly some support in the IPR WG for that, back when we
adopted the current policies.  It would pay to reread the WG minutes and
the archives of the discussions.

--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: ETSI patent licence rules

Russ Housley — 2012-02-09T18:41:08

I find this very interesting.

I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor.  He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs.  I indicated that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties that do not participate in the standards making process.  This idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further.

Is there support for _any_ of these ideas?

Russ


On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: