Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Just as a simple "for example": what is the set of names that
needs to be
posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're
required to put in our
documents?
The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust. No author permissions
are needed.
Hmm... seems t
--On Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:32:12 AM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
wrote:
For background, the trademark license was included in RFC 3978 because
someone was concerned about Contributors who submitted documents to IETF
for standards-track use and included trademarked product names in them.
Th
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Donald Eastlake" writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson
> wrote:
> > ...
> >> If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains trademarked
> >> words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson
> wrote:
> > ...
> >> If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains
> trademarked
> >> words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have
> signed the
> >> IETF Trust form if the document contains trademarks. You need t
"Donald Eastlake" writes:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ...
>> If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains trademarked
>> words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have signed the
>> IETF Trust form if the document contains trademarks. You
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains trademarked
> words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have signed the
> IETF Trust form if the document contains trademarks. You need to
> contact him anyway, to g
"Contreras, Jorge" writes:
> My point was that code was already broadly licensed under the OLD
> copyright rules in 3978, so the post-5378 contributor doesn't face the
> same predicament when he/she re-uses pre-5378 code as when he/she
> re-uses pre-5378 text (i.e., his/her warranty is TRUE when
macbroadcast wrote:
There are also numerous Federal Co-Development programs in the various
Excutive Branch agencies and they also must be included here because
those may also have outside privte commitments as well.
Todd Glassey
federal works
sorry for my might be oftopic comment, so if
federal works
sorry for my might be oftopic comment, so if i see something like
this in a source code, ,
This material is partially based on work sponsored by the National
Science foundation under Cooperative Agreement No NCR-x.The
Government has certain rights in this material.
Title: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Yes, I think we mention federal works in 5378. Unfortunately I don't think there are a lot of them, but have not done an inventory.
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks
To: Contreras, Jorge
Cc: Simon Jose
Dear Jorge;
On Dec 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
(I tracked the first sentence of the "Managed objects are accessed"
phrase back to RFC 1065, August 1988; authors-of-record
were Marshall
Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that,
of course.)
That date is b
> >> As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names
> >> required to cover
> >> all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a
> >> MIB module?
> >
> > See above. In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly
> > under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-cod
Indeed -- I don't see a copyright notice in RFC 1065. This may be a
useful approach for old RFCs that lack a copyright notice. Does anyone
know when the ISOC copyright notice was first applied to RFCs?
Probably some time after 1989, when the ISOC took over funding of the
RFC Editor. I do
> >> (I tracked the first sentence of the "Managed objects are accessed"
> >> phrase back to RFC 1065, August 1988; authors-of-record
> were Marshall
> >> Rose and Keith McCloghrie. There were drafts before that,
> of course.)
> >
> > That date is before RFC 1310 which makes things more intere
--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 17:37 -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
wrote:
>> As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names
>> required to cover
>> all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a
>> MIB module?
>
> See above. In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly
>
[I trimmed the cc:s. I assume the trustees are paying attention to
this, and also that WG Chairs are all subscribed to the general list.]
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:12:42PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I
> understood the rules
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand writes:
I will check into this. Ideally, all boilerplate would be owned
by the
IETF Trust, but I am not aware that anyone has ever focused on this
material. Technically, the copyright owner would be the author(s)
who
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Ray Pelletier writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get th
Harald Alvestrand writes:
>> I will check into this. Ideally, all boilerplate would be owned by the
>> IETF Trust, but I am not aware that anyone has ever focused on this
>> material. Technically, the copyright owner would be the author(s) who
>> wrote the first document that says those words.
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Who owns the oft-repeated
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
I'm referring to the bits
"Contreras, Jorge" writes:
>> Jorge,
>>
>> I'm working on the assumption that once a contributor or a
>> contributor's assign has signed the license form in its
>> RFC5378 version, we can all submit drafts including that
>> contributor's earlier text without further ado. Is that correct?
>>
>>
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
> Simon Josefsson skrev:
>> Ray Pelletier writes:
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>
>>>
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
r
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Ray Pelletier writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?
I woul
> Who owns the oft-repeated
>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
> "OPTIONAL" in this
>document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
> I'm referring to the bits effectively required by th
Hi -
> From: "Contreras, Jorge"
> To: "Randy Presuhn" ; "IETF Discussion"
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> Subject: RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
...
> The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust. No author permiss
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:52 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: Randy Presuhn; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
>
> Jorge,
>
>
Jorge,
I'm working on the assumption that once a contributor or a
contributor's assign has signed the license form in its
RFC5378 version, we can all submit drafts including that
contributor's earlier text without further ado. Is that correct?
Brian
On 2008-12-19 11:37, Contreras, Jorge wro
> Just as a simple "for example": what is the set of names that
> needs to be
> posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're
> required to put in our
> documents?
The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust. No author permissions
are needed.
> As a slightly harder example: what i
uot;Working Group Chairs"
; "IETF Discussion" ; "Trustees"
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > Why do we need to send these license
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Ray Pelletier writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track
Ray Pelletier writes:
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
>>
>> I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
>> rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?
>
> I would envision folks providin
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?
I would envision folks providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 02:14:44PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?
I
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 02:14:44PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
>
> I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
> rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?
I think it will make it easier to get proof of the n
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get the necessary
rights. Are you just conveniently keeping track for us?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iet
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF_General_TM_License.pdf,
which would be:
IETF Trust
1775 Wiehle Ave
Reston, VA 201905108
c/o IETF Administrative Director
Facsimile: 703.326.9881
ok, i put an IETF logo on our sourceforge oage last week , please
don´t sue me i will send
a signed document
On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Martin Duerst wrote:
I *assume* it's the same as for the TM Licence at
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF_General_TM_License.pdf,
which would be:
IETF Trust
1775 Wiehle Ave
Reston, VA 201905108
c/o IETF Administrative Director
Facsimile: 703.326.9881
This is corr
37 matches
Mail list logo
