http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5851 <pre>If this list is still active, people might be interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16948544 Regards Brian Carpenter </pre> Brian E Carpenter 2012-02-08T23:23:48 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5848 <pre>Not sure where to discuss this, so I'll try the old ipr-wg mailing list. I read through this document and it strikes me as not benig quite sure what it wants to do. On the one hand, their seems to be an undercurrent of IETF participants not really living up to their obligations wrt IPR, which is bad. Specifically, they don't make disclosures when they should, and something should be done about that. On the other hand, the document appears loath to actually change the behavior of WGs or individuals. So it makes some possible suggestions, but they come across as weak and have no real push behind them. My guess would be that the document as it is written now would have little impact on anyone's behavior. IMO, the IETF suffers a bit from a "don't ask don't tell" mentality when it comes to IETF disclosures. We have a policy (and procedure), but the process is not always adhered to rigourously, and folk seem afraid to actually do much about it. That means there is widely varying behavior amongst different indiv</pre> Thomas Narten 2011-08-30T12:28:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5846 <pre>Hi, I have a filed accepted provisional patent application(s) that bears on an IETF draft. RFC 3979 says "The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on unpublished patent applications." That's fine, because provisional patent applications are not published. But the IPR submission template only provides for "an unpublished pending patent application". There is no sense that I understand in which my provisional patent filing(s) are "pending". They are fully accepted and there is no further action the US Patent office is going to take on it/them. The word "pending" should be stricken from the template. Having no idea how long this will take to fix, I will probably go ahead and file adding a Note explaining what is going on and pointing out this error in the form. Thanks, Donald =============================  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)  155 Beaver Street  Milford, MA 01757 USA  d3e3e3&lt; at &gt;gmail.c</pre> Donald Eastlake 2011-05-06T02:17:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5845 <pre>Testing _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg </pre> Stephan Wenger 2011-04-13T19:57:49 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5830 <pre>RFC 5378 says: It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except in the case where such document is the product of a joint development effort between the IETF and another standards development organization or is a republication of the work of another standards development organization. This has prevented the authors of two different documents from including the code that they wanted in their document. Here is the header that was part of the code that the authors wanted to include: /* * This is a copy of getopt provided for those systems that do not * have it. The name was changed to xgetopt to not conflict on those * systems that do have it. Similarly, optarg, optind and opterr * were renamed to xoptarg, xoptind and xopterr. * * Copyright 1990, 1991, 1992 by the Massachusetts Institute of * Technology and UniSoft Group Limited. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software * and its documentation</pre> Russ Housley 2010-05-10T14:33:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5826 <pre>The Note Well says in part Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or do the other streams need their own Note Well ? Regards Marshall </pre> Marshall Eubanks 2010-04-09T18:12:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5825 <pre>I feel like I've seen this discussion before.... http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/03/update_on_html_5_document_lice.html Excerpt: The result of discussion among the Membership is that there is strong support for: * a license that allows the reuse of excerpts in software, software documentation, test suites, and other scenarios; * a license (or licenses) that are familiar to the open source community; * processes that encourage innovation and experimentation about Web technology, so that work can be easily brought to W3C for standardization; * making the HTML Working Group a forum that is conducive to participation by the community at large; * ensuring that the HTML 5 specification remains valuable to the entire Web community (see an update from Philippe Le Hégaret on HTML &lt;http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0323-html-plh/&gt; that he presented to the Membership). In short, there is strong support in the Membership (but not unanimity) for all of the </pre> Harald Alvestrand 2010-03-29T06:12:50 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5823 <pre>The reason I bring this up is this work by John Gregory (an Attorney for the Policy Group in the Canadian Prime Ministers office) on when eSign is binding and when it is not. The problem I am having is that there is no eSign process for IP based on an emailing with no commentary for submission and well... it means that NoteWell probably doesnt work the way we think it does. http://www.euclid.ca/reliability_sigs.pdf </pre> Todd Glassey 2010-02-15T14:02:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5811 <pre>YEs, I have been pointed out privately about the fact that commercial interests keep some RFC code at the heart of the products, which can't be of course given for free, otherwise commerce dies out. Yes, I agree - I respect commercial interests and I live on commercial interests by the way. That said - people lived on commercial interests before too, without "BSD" at the beginning of each RFC. This "BSD" in the preamble looks as something very bad may have happened, I don't know what. Alex </pre> Alexandru Petrescu 2010-02-12T16:07:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5769 <pre>Hi IPR WG, I have interest in licensing and IPR of the technology in RFCs. I recently stumbled on the RPL protocol WG item draft (in the RoLL WG, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks) and worried about "Code Components" in the boilerplate. Could one implement RPL in a linux kernel? Knowing that linux kernel is mostly GPL, avoiding BSD, and that I see the word BSD in the bolierplate. If I may be missing something - sorry, Alex </pre> Alexandru Petrescu 2010-02-10T18:46:38 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5768 <pre>Folks - I have had it with Dean's IETF-HONEST posts and am going to do something about them. What's amazing is that your brain trust wasnt able to get this one but hey... it is what it is eh? So - the first step is in notifying the IETF that under personal privacy codes in a number of States that my email address is protected information. Information I share with the IETF for use inside IETF processes which take place on IETF sponsored lists and for no other reason. Because of the sloppy work by the IPR WG which I brought up to Harald many times, this matter is still unhandled. So let me explain what is going to happen next. The first part is I put you on notice and through formal service to the ISOC's corporate point of service since the IETF was never really incorporated as far as I can tell with the following demand: The next step is litigation to support that cease and desist demand. -------------------------- Be advised that as a member of an IETF WG I am not authorizing the IETF to </pre> tglassey 2010-02-07T16:26:10 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5757 <pre>I tried to file a new IPR notice this AM and the form is broken - produces a failure message... Todd </pre> tglassey 2010-01-31T15:57:41 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5756 <pre>I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms: "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself." This will stop anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and then setting up subsidiary lists Todd Glassey </pre> tglassey 2010-01-31T16:34:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5734 <pre>_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg </pre> tglassey 2010-01-22T03:26:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5729 <pre>The Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents, http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm, make an important distinction between documents in the IETF Stream and documents in Alternative Streams, such as independent submissions. Given a RFC, how can I determine its stream, and thus its license? In most cases, I can guess based on the authors, or the category. However, this will not be fool-proof. For example, RFC 5745 is clearly part of the IAB stream, thus according to part 8b of the IETF TLP, part of Alternate Stream. However, it does contain the boilerplate text of 6 b i (for the IETF stream), instead of the boilerplate text of 6 b ii (for the alternate stream). Would it be useful to explicitly include the stream in the boilerplate text of the Copyright Notice section, so that the appropriate license terms are clear for all readers? Regards, Freek Dijkstra </pre> Freek Dijkstra 2010-01-16T01:24:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5722 <pre>The IETF Stream requires that code extracted from an RFC be put under the simplified BSD license. The other RFC streams (IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission) have rejected this approach. Instead these streams simply require proper attribution. Why is the IETF Stream different? It would be much easier on everyone if the same approach were used across all of the RFC streams. Russ </pre> Russ Housley 2010-01-07T19:52:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5721 <pre>The IRTF and Independent Submission Streams have rejected the Simplified BSD License for their stream. Instead, these streams are simply saying that the code is provided "as is". Since these streams always allow derivative works with attribution, it applies to the text as well as any code. Russ </pre> Russ Housley 2009-12-07T22:53:38 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5717 <pre>Greetings; The Trustees are proposing additional changes to the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents effective September 12, 2009 (TLP 3.0). This is a formal request for community review, with a 30 day review period ending on December 27, 2009 The additional changes proposed here (TLP 4.1) are A.) at the request of the Alternate Stream managers regarding the treatment of 'code components' and B.) at the request of the community regarding the addition of Alternate Stream managers to the warranty disclaimer. These changes result from the discussion of the proposed changes announced on 23 October, which are included in this document for review as section C. PDF versions and differences between the existing TLP are available at http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html. A.) Elimination of BSD licensing for Alternate Stream documents This action requires revisions to four sections: 4.c, 8.e, 8.f, and 8.g as follows: [Note *** indictes begin and end added text) Section 4.</pre> Marshall Eubanks 2009-11-25T21:35:48 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5716 <pre>Greetings; The Trustees are proposing additional changes to the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents effective September 12, 2009 (TLP 3.0). This is a formal request for community review, with a 30 day review period ending on December 27, 2009 The additional changes proposed here (TLP 4.1) are A.) at the request of the Alternate Stream managers regarding the treatment of 'code components' and B.) at the request of the community regarding the addition of Alternate Stream managers to the warranty disclaimer. These changes result from the discussion of the proposed changes announced on 23 October, which are included in this document for review as section C. PDF versions and differences between the existing TLP are available at http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html. A.) Elimination of BSD licensing for Alternate Stream documents This action requires revisions to four sections: 4.c, 8.e, 8.f, and 8.g as follows: [Note *** indictes begin and end added text) Section 4.</pre> Marshall Eubanks 2009-11-25T21:35:26 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5715 <pre>Greetings; The Trustees are proposing changes to the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents effective September 12, 2009 (TLP 3.0). This is a formal request for community review. The review period will be for thirty days and end on November 24, 2009 The changes are required based upon a request from the RFC Editor on behalf of the Independent Submissions Stream, and from the IRTF Steering Group (IRSG) on behalf of the IRTF Stream (Alternate Streams) that the IETF Trust act as the license administrators for the RFCs produced by their streams. The basic intent of these changes is to both make changes necessary to accept these new streams, and to make it possible for these new streams to operate under "Postel Rules." Additional minor changes are sought by the Trustees to clarify language in TLP 3.0. The Trustees believe the following changes are necessitated by the request of the RFC Editor and IRSG, a. Section 1. -- eliminated reference to "IETF Standards Process" to bro</pre> Marshall Eubanks 2009-10-23T18:41:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5710 <pre>Chair - why is a RFC being obsoleted by an Internet-Draft? Seems to me like an impossibility. No I-D can in and of itself strip any RFC document without issuing a new RFC to replace the old one. Since an I-D is NOT a RFC this is an issue. This is a problem per se like this one... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-autokey-06 Todd Glassey </pre> Todd Glassey 2009-09-20T22:28:13 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.ipr