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

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 s

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 wil

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 t

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: