Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Martin Duerst wrote: Re. pre-5378 vs. post-5378 material, please note that in many cases, an RFC may be post-5378, but the Internet-Drafts having lead up to it may be pre-5378, or the lastest available Internet- Draft may be post-5378, but earlier ones may be pre-5378. In other words, just looking at things at the RFC level is not enough. That may be obvious to many, just wanted to make sure it doesn't get forgotten. Regards,Martin. In particular, at the moment the RFC was published, the whole issue we're discussing here may not have been known. Certainly my co-authors and myself weren't aware of it when we approved publication of RFC 5323. Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Re. pre-5378 vs. post-5378 material, please note that in many cases, an RFC may be post-5378, but the Internet-Drafts having lead up to it may be pre-5378, or the lastest available Internet- Draft may be post-5378, but earlier ones may be pre-5378. In other words, just looking at things at the RFC level is not enough. That may be obvious to many, just wanted to make sure it doesn't get forgotten. Regards,Martin. At 07:07 09/01/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: John, On 2009-01-10 10:32, John C Klensin wrote: ... And note that makes a clear and plausible transition model: (1) Pre-5378 documents exist under pre-5378 rules, so any potential user for non-traditional purposes needs to either figure out who the relevant authors are and get their permission or decide the risk isn't worth worrying about. If some of those authors/ contributors make explicit transfers to the Trust, that is great, but none of them have to take responsibility for identifying all of the others. (3) Post-5378 new documents are posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions. (2) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378 materials must used 5378 rules for any material that is new. For the earlier materials, and for sorting out which is which, the burden falls on the potential user for non-traditional purposes to either figure out who the relevant authors are and get their permission, determine that all relevant authors have already given permission, or assume the risks. No one else --neither the author(s)/ editor(s) of the new document nor the Trust-- is required to take responsibility for pre-5378 contributors or contributions. Even an editor of the new document that worked on the old material is not required to make assertions about new rights on behalf of his or her former employer. Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the viable options. My draft implicitly adds (2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378 materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions. To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2). Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf #-#-# Martin J. Durst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Joel Halpern wrote: The working group could have included what Simon asked for in 5377. The rough consensus of the WG was not to do so. That is accurate. It is also a damned shame, and many of us still don't agree. /Larry Rosen Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:29 AM To: Simon Josefsson Cc: 'IETF Discussion' Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem Let's be quite clear here. Your stated requirement for doing this was that authors had to be able to take and modify any text from anywhere in an RFC. The Working Group concluded that while that was reasonable relative to code (and we tried to give the open source community that ability relative to code), that such a wide grant was not reasonable relative to the text content of RFC. (Among other concerns, such changes would include modification of normative text and text carefully worked out by working groups to get the meanings right. If the WG got it wrong, the IETF is the place to fix it, not comments in code somewhere.) Also, it should be understood that this issue is largely orthogonal to the topic under discussion. The working group could have included what Simon asked for in 5377. The rough consensus of the WG was not to do so. A more narrow 5378 would make it harder to make such a grant, but since the working group didn't choose to do so (and personally, I think doing so would undermine much of our work) the issues seems to have no bearing on whould we rescind 5378? or is there a better transition strategy to get 5378 to apply to the bulk of our work? or how do we get 5378 rights in code, without holding up all the other documents? Yours, Joel Simon Josefsson wrote: One of the remaining problems is, as described above, that the IETF license does not permit authors to take BSD licensed code and use them as illustration in RFCs because RFC 5378 does not permit additional copyright notices to be present in RFCs. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Hi - From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem ... 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. ... That certainly was *not* my understanding when I offered my services as an editor for the various IDs and RFCs where I've functioned in that role. I, and I'm sure many others in those working groups, thought those documents were products of the working group, which did that work for the IETF. For me to claim authorship of, e.g., RFC 3417, would be intellectually dishonest. For the IETF to claim that I was its author, rather than merely an editor acting on the instruction of a working group, is downright delusional. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem ... 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. ... That certainly was *not* my understanding when I offered my services as an editor for the various IDs and RFCs where I've functioned in that role. I, and I'm sure many others in those working groups, thought those documents were products of the working group, which did that work for the IETF. For me to claim authorship of, e.g., RFC 3417, would be intellectually dishonest. For the IETF to claim that I was its author, rather than merely an editor acting on the instruction of a working group, is downright delusional. Randy there are a broad range of possible interpertations on ones activities in such a loose confederation of like-minded individuals (since the IETF has no membership per se). i was pointing out that for some period of time, (and i suspect this is still true for non-WG generated materials) where the work product was developed independently of any given WG effort. the NFS spec comes to mind. for a few months/years, this was recognized by the RFC editor and the IAB/IESG - which created three specific copyright statements that reflected the various origins of the submitted materials. one of those boilerplate texts allowed for the listed authors to own the copyright to the text and gave specific permission to the IETF to publish the work as-is. that said, i can not disagree with you on your understandings. so ... prior to the dis-engagement of CNRI and the rise of the IETF TRUST, just how would one define the IETF anyway? -- --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 Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
