On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:47AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
> > "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
> > Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
> > is not granted."
> - and -
> > So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a
> > private ownership right in the materials they generated. I think
> > that the IETF Trust should be very careful in using/reusing that
> > material, esp w/o asking permission.
>
> This is consistent with what I've been saying, namely that IETF RFCs are
> joint works of authorship.
er... thats -NOT- what I was trying to point out. The IETF
was given permission to publish an authors work but was not
allowed to impune joint authorship. The IETF did not create the
work - it provided a publication vehicle.
>
> 1. The fact that IETF never previously granted the right to produce
> derivative works can easily be corrected by one of the joint copyright
> owners, in this case the IETF Trust, now granting that license. As I
> understand it, this is what Simon and others have been arguing for all along
> for the IETF out-license.
going forward, perhaps. retro-active, not so sure.
> 2. The IETF Trust owns a joint copyright. That also means that we can't
> object if the other joint copyright owners assert their own private
> ownership rights in the materials they generated. Who's stopping them? None
> of the joint owners needs to ask permission of IETF or any others to do
> anything they want with those jointly-owned IETF RFCs.
I think the basis of the argument revolves around the assertion
of "joint" ownership. ... and there are concerns with all forms
of communications over IETF sanctioned/sponsored channels - e.g.
the "Note Well" - not just the RFC series.
>
> > There, I've spoken up ... reserving my right to speak now and later
> > on this topic. (not going to "forever hold my peace").
>
> Please excuse my poetic turn of phrase. As others have privately pointed out
> to me, it is unlikely that anyone on here will respond to my plea to declare
> their private claims any more than anyone does even at the worst of
> weddings. That is another reason why the IETF Trust asking permission to do
> what we wish with our own industry standards is such a futile exercise.
> Hardly anyone has the courage or incentive to say "No" and publicly declare
> their private ownership of our common standards. That is why we have to take
> the risk to do what we need to do and simply dare anyone on here to sue IETF
> when we allow certain kinds of derivative works.
thats ok... i'm not really "anyone" so i am sorry for taking
your statements at face value.
> For the lawyers on here, I'm hoping that silence now, particularly by the
> major IETF contributors on this list, will be interpreted as laches or
> waiver if one of them later claims an exclusive copyright interest in any
> IETF RFC.
sorry - not waiving those rights to you or anyone else.
--bill
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Manning [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 3:16 AM
> > To: Lawrence Rosen
> > Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
> > reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > >
> > > That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it
> > personally
> > > or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right
> > in
> > > any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your
> > peace.
> > > Otherwise, I think it best that the IETF Trust exercise its rights under
> > its
> > > joint copyright to do whatever is deemed appropriate and in the public
> > > interest, as determined by the IETF Trustees and its legal counsel, and
> > not
> > > ask permission.
> > >
> > > /Larry
> > >
> >
> > are you talking about -all- IETF related documents (IDs, postings,
> > april 1st RFCs, etc...) or RFCs that are standards? (discounting
> > BCPs, Informational RFCs, etc)
> >
> > for a period of time, text like this appeared in at least a dozen
> > documents:
> >
> > "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
> > Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
> > is not granted."
> >
> > there were even a few documents that had explicit copyright
> > statements
> > that excluded ISOC & IETF from doing anything with the document,
> > other
> > than the right to publish for the period of performance for an ID,
> > e.g.
> > no longer than six months.
> >
> > one reaction to that was the promulgation of the "Note Well" legal
> > advice
> > and the path that lead us to this point.
> >
> > So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a
> > private
> > ownership right in the materials they generated. I think that the
> > IETF
> > Trust should be very careful in using/reusing that material, esp w/o
> > asking permission.
> >
> > There, I've spoken up ... reserving my right to speak now and later
> > on this
> > topic. (not going to "forever hold my peace").
> >
> >
> >
> > --bill
> > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
> > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
