Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 to me that there is a release required for the derivative work here right? Todd Glassey 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-code text. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1850 - Release Date: 12/15/2008 5:04 PM ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.orgwrote: Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org 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 get permission to reproduce the trademark. /Simon You should consult an attorney but, as far as I know, at least in the US, there is no magic permission needed to reproduce a trademark. Usually trademarks are to indicate the source of a product or service and as long as you don't mislead people about that, you are fine. Then what use does section 3.4 of RFC 5378 serve? There is a reason I suggested you consult a real lawyer, but I suppose bars the authors of an RFC from later making a claim that the RFC or derivative works infringe on the trade mark, that is to say, leads to confusion as to the source of some good of service. 3.4. Rights to Use Trademarks Contributors may wish to seek trademark or service mark protection on any terms that are coined or used in their Contributions. The IETF makes no judgment about the validity of any such trademark rights. However, the IETF requires each Contributor, under the licenses described in Section 5.3 below, to grant the IETF Trust a perpetual license to use any such trademarks or service marks solely in exercising rights to reproduce, publish, discuss, and modify the IETF Contribution. This license does not authorize the IETF or others to use any trademark or service mark in connection with any product or service offering. It was co-authored by the IETF attorney, so I suspect it is intended to serve some purpose. See my comment above. If it serves a purpose, contributors needs to get the necessary right and be able to transfer it to the IETF Trust in order to submit a contribution. As far as I understand, that would involve talking with the old contributor if trademarks are involved. That does not follow. No license is needed for non-infringing use of a trade mark but granting even an unnecessary license probably makes it harder to get very far with a law suit against the IETF transferring some of a very small risk from the IETF to the contributor. There is no way to be perfectly safe in the current legal system but doing anything, including producing or publishing any document, probably increases your risk. Do you believe that Jon Postel or its current authors needed to get the necessary right to publish each of the large number of trademarks in STD 1 (currently RFC 5000)? /Simon Thanks,Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC 5378 Trademarks (was where to send RFC 5378 license forms)
--On Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:32:12 AM -0500 Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com 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. The IETF wanted to ensure that the IETF process would not be hindered by the Contributor, and also wanted to ensure that the trademarks were identified so that implementers would not be surprised by the trademark owner's claim after a standard was adopted. To be clear, this was not idle paranoia. Like many (not all) of the poor behaviors our processes attempt to protect against, this is something that working groups have actually seen happen. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) jhu...@cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RFC 5378 Trademarks (was where to send RFC 5378 license forms)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org 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 get permission to reproduce the trademark. /Simon You should consult an attorney but, as far as I know, at least in the US, there is no magic permission needed to reproduce a trademark. Usually trademarks are to indicate the source of a product or service and as long as you don't mislead people about that, you are fine. Then what use does section 3.4 of RFC 5378 serve? 3.4. Rights to Use Trademarks Contributors may wish to seek trademark or service mark protection on any terms that are coined or used in their Contributions. The IETF makes no judgment about the validity of any such trademark rights. However, the IETF requires each Contributor, under the licenses described in Section 5.3 below, to grant the IETF Trust a perpetual license to use any such trademarks or service marks solely in exercising rights to reproduce, publish, discuss, and modify the IETF Contribution. This license does not authorize the IETF or others to use any trademark or service mark in connection with any product or service offering. It was co-authored by the IETF attorney, so I suspect it is intended to serve some purpose. If it serves a purpose, contributors needs to get the necessary right and be able to transfer it to the IETF Trust in order to submit a contribution. As far as I understand, that would involve talking with the old contributor if trademarks are involved. 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. The IETF wanted to ensure that the IETF process would not be hindered by the Contributor, and also wanted to ensure that the trademarks were identified so that implementers would not be surprised by the trademark owner's claim after a standard was adopted. While it's true that trademark *infringement* requires an infringing use (i.e., use on a product or service), and that IETF would likely not be engaged in such an infringing use, the US also gives owners of famous marks the ability to sue for trademark dilution, which does not require an infringing use. To be absolutely safe, the IETF has requested the trademark license to avoid any infringement or dilution suit. This being said, for the sake of completeness, the Contributor License should probably include both trademark and copyright grants (thanks to Simon for identifying this). However, given that RFC 3978 includes the same trademark license as 5378, the issue only exists for pre-3978 documents. Moreover, RFC 2026 requires identification (via IPR disclosure) of any IPR rights relating to Contributions, which technically would include trademarks. If a Contributor did not identify the relevant trademarks in an IPR disclosure (a rare occurrence), then one would question the enforceability of those trademarks against IETF. Pre-2026 IPR policies such as those contained in RFC 1602 and 1310 include wording relating to rights that could also include trademarks. Thus, I think that including a trademark grant in the Contributor License would be an improvement, but don't view this as a large issue in any case. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org 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 get permission to reproduce the trademark. /Simon You should consult an attorney but, as far as I know, at least in the US, there is no magic permission needed to reproduce a trademark. Usually trademarks are to indicate the source of a product or service and as long as you don't mislead people about that, you are fine. Then what use does section 3.4 of RFC 5378 serve? 3.4. Rights to Use Trademarks Contributors may wish to seek trademark or service mark protection on any terms that are coined or used in their Contributions. The IETF makes no judgment about the validity of any such trademark rights. However, the IETF requires each Contributor, under the licenses described in Section 5.3 below, to grant the IETF Trust a perpetual license to use any such trademarks or service marks solely in exercising rights to reproduce, publish, discuss, and modify the IETF Contribution. This license does not authorize the IETF or others to use any trademark or service mark in connection with any product or service offering. It was co-authored by the IETF attorney, so I suspect it is intended to serve some purpose. If it serves a purpose, contributors needs to get the necessary right and be able to transfer it to the IETF Trust in order to submit a contribution. As far as I understand, that would involve talking with the old contributor if trademarks are involved. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org 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 get permission to reproduce the trademark. /Simon You should consult an attorney but, as far as I know, at least in the US, there is no magic permission needed to reproduce a trademark. Usually trademarks are to indicate the source of a product or service and as long as you don't mislead people about that, you are fine. Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com 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 made with respect to pre-5378 code fragments). Here's the code license granted under 3978: (E) to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute, modify and incorporate into other works, for any purpose (and not limited to use within the IETF Standards Process) any executable code or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such as MIB and PIB modules), Those rights are only granted to 'the ISOC and the IETF', not to third parties, see the paragraph above (E): a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the Contribution: Third parties get no rights under RFC 3978. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Harald Tveit Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes: Simon Josefsson skrev: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org 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 providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I understood the rules, it is the author that needs to get the necessary rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF. The form appears to give the necessary rights from the original contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors. If the Trust has those rights, it's licensing them to all participants under the same terms as post-5378 works. Not as far as I can see. The Outgoing license from the Trust does not include many of the rights required from contributors in Incoming. For example, RFC 5378 section 5.3 d) says: d. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names which are included in the Contribution solely in connection with the reproduction, distribution, or publication of the Contribution and derivative works thereof as permitted by this Section 5.3, provided that when reproducing Contributions, trademark and service mark identifiers used in the Contribution, including TM and (R), will be preserved. The 'Legal Provisions' document does not mention trademarks. Thus, by default, there is no grants of rights related to trademarks from the IETF Trust to IETF participants. 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 get permission to reproduce the trademark. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com 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? Brian That's right. How does that work? The outgoing rights granted by the IETF Trust does not include many of the rights required from contributors in Incoming. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 effectively required by the MIB doctors, e.g.: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines a basic set of managed objects for Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)-based management of ... and For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. and various incarnations of this stuff that appear in the text of RFCs that happen to contain MIB modules, not the stuff that's in the MIB modules. (Earlier versions of this were rather lengthy.) 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. However, the copyright in such generic phrases is vestigial at best. Jorge, would the fact that people have acted as if these phrases can be copied freely for the last 20 years create a presumption that the copyright holders (if any) have given permission for their free copying? (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.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no 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. However, the copyright in such generic phrases is vestigial at best. Jorge, would the fact that people have acted as if these phrases can be copied freely for the last 20 years create a presumption that the copyright holders (if any) have given permission for their free copying? Didn't earlier IETF legal policies give permission to re-use these phrases within the IETF standards process? (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 interesting. Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 1989, when the US signed the Berne convention. According to: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ 1978 to 1 March 1989 Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years In the public domain Thus, the RFC 1065 document would now appear to be in the public domain, since it does not contain a copyright notice, and assuming nobody registered for a copyright on it within 5 years. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Simon Josefsson wrote: Harald Tveit Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes: Simon Josefsson skrev: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org 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 providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I understood the rules, it is the author that needs to get the necessary rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF. The form appears to give the necessary rights from the original contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors. If the Trust has those rights, it's licensing them to all participants under the same terms as post-5378 works. Not as far as I can see. You're right. I should have said It should be licensing them, since the current text of the Trust's license says that it applies only to post-5378 works. The Outgoing license from the Trust does not include many of the rights required from contributors in Incoming. That's by design. As John said so many times during the discussions: we probably have to expand the rights granted to the Trust once, but we should make very, very sure that we don't have to do it again. For example, RFC 5378 section 5.3 d) says: d. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names which are included in the Contribution solely in connection with the reproduction, distribution, or publication of the Contribution and derivative works thereof as permitted by this Section 5.3, provided that when reproducing Contributions, trademark and service mark identifiers used in the Contribution, including TM and (R), will be preserved. The 'Legal Provisions' document does not mention trademarks. Thus, by default, there is no grants of rights related to trademarks from the IETF Trust to IETF participants. 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 get permission to reproduce the trademark. I sure hope that's a bug (and one that, because of the separation of concerns, we can get fixed without spinning up a working group). Harald (thankful to not be IPR chair any more, and being back to just having opinions) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no 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. However, the copyright in such generic phrases is vestigial at best. Jorge, would the fact that people have acted as if these phrases can be copied freely for the last 20 years create a presumption that the copyright holders (if any) have given permission for their free copying? Didn't earlier IETF legal policies give permission to re-use these phrases within the IETF standards process? (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 interesting. Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 1989, when the US signed the Berne convention. According to: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ 1978 to 1 March 1989 Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years In the public domain I had forgotten that - the Trust Counsel should give a reading on this. I think that a list needs to be maintained of RFC5378 compliant works. If RFCs published before a certain date are all public domain, then that would save a lot of trouble, as they could all be added to the list. (If they are PD, then others can modify them freely, and there are no rights to grant.) Thus, the RFC 1065 document would now appear to be in the public domain, since it does not contain a copyright notice, and assuming nobody registered for a copyright on it within 5 years. With deep apologies to Victor Hugo, I think that the combination of very long terms (life of the author + 70 years) and no requirement for notice or registration has been an unmitigated disaster for the public good. This is not the place to discuss that, though. Regards Marshall /Simon ___ 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: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
[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, it is the author that needs to get the necessary rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF. I don't think RFC 5378 requires the Contributor personally to get the rights. The Contributor instead is just asserting that any other party that may have rights in the Contribution is also willing to agree to the same terms: The Contributor is further deemed to have agreed that he/she has obtained the necessary permissions to enter into such an agreement from any party that the Contributor reasonably and personally knows may have rights in the Contribution, including, but not limited to, the Contributor's sponsor or employer. If the other party has explicitly grantd such rights to the Trust, then it seems to me the Contributor can assert that the necessary permissions have been obtained. Insert usual non-lawyer disclaimer here. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 17:37 -0500 Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com 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 under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-code text. Maybe I still don't fully understand what 5398 does, but, while that broad licensing of MIB modules presumably permits the IETF (and others) to work with them, it doesn't imply the transfers to the Trust, and ability of the Trust to relicense, required by 5398, does it? And, if not, the broad licensing of MIB modules doesn't help a new author of a document that incorporates a MIB module make the assertions that 5398 requires, does it? If the answer is no, then such an author would still have to go back to the original Contributor(s) of the MIB module and persuade them to generate the new license, just as he or she would with any other older contributed text. Right? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
(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 interesting. Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 1989, when the US signed the Berne convention. According to: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ 1978 to 1 March 1989 Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years In the public domain I had forgotten that - the Trust Counsel should give a reading on this. 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? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 don't recall exactly, but it should not be hard to find out. Bob Braden. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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-code text. Maybe I still don't fully understand what 5398 does, but, while that broad licensing of MIB modules presumably permits the IETF (and others) to work with them, it doesn't imply the transfers to the Trust, and ability of the Trust to relicense, required by 5398, does it? Yes it does -- see below And, if not, the broad licensing of MIB modules doesn't help a new author of a document that incorporates a MIB module make the assertions that 5398 requires, does it? If the answer is no, then such an author would still have to go back to the original Contributor(s) of the MIB module and persuade them to generate the new license, just as he or she would with any other older contributed text. Right? 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 made with respect to pre-5378 code fragments). Here's the code license granted under 3978: (E) to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute, modify and incorporate into other works, for any purpose (and not limited to use within the IETF Standards Process) any executable code or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such as MIB and PIB modules), ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 before RFC 1310 which makes things more interesting. Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 1989, when the US signed the Berne convention. According to: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ 1978 to 1 March 1989 Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years In the public domain I had forgotten that - the Trust Counsel should give a reading on this. 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? Also do not forget that the US Government does not claim copyright. Were any RFCs written by US Civil Servants ? Then their work is in the Public Domain. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 t...@multicasttech.com To: Contreras, Jorge Cc: Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org; Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no; Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Fri Dec 19 19:11:46 2008 Subject: Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms 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 before RFC 1310 which makes things more interesting. Even more interesting is that the date is before 1 March 1989, when the US signed the Berne convention. According to: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ 1978 to 1 March 1989 Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years In the public domain I had forgotten that - the Trust Counsel should give a reading on this. 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? Also do not forget that the US Government does not claim copyright. Were any RFCs written by US Civil Servants ? Then their work is in the Public Domain. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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. --- this would encumber me from using it, if i understand it correctly, so i thing you really need to be careful when you get sposorship for an open source project for example. just my 2 cents best regards marc Also do not forget that the US Government does not claim copyright. Were any RFCs written by US Civil Servants ? Then their work is in the Public Domain. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 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. --- this would encumber me from using it, if i understand it correctly, so i thing you really need to be careful when you get sposorship for an open source project for example. just my 2 cents best regards marc Also do not forget that the US Government does not claim copyright. Were any RFCs written by US Civil Servants ? Then their work is in the Public Domain. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1850 - Release Date: 12/15/2008 5:04 PM ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 correct. Alternatively, one could pdf a signed copy and email to i...@ietf.org. I am investigating automating the process and will keep you apprised of the possibility and progress. Ray IAD However, it would REALLY be good if the Contributor licence also contained the necessary details on how and where to submit. I have already made that suggestion on the IETF list. Regards,Martin. At 12:32 08/12/18, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - I've seen http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf Where are we supposed to have our WG members send the signed forms? I'd like to get our WG unstuck, since IETF action on fixing RFC 5378 seems unlikely. Randy #-#-# 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: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 in the next days. thanks for your appreciation marc However, it would REALLY be good if the Contributor licence I've seen -- Les Enfants Terribles - WWW.LET.DE Marc Manthey 50672 Köln - Germany Hildeboldplatz 1a Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 mail: m...@let.de jabber :m...@kgraff.net IRC: #opencu freenode.net twitter: http://twitter.com/macbroadcast web: http://www.let.de 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). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of six months. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 necessary rights having been granted if there's a repository that makes available the names of those who have granted the rights once and for all. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 think it will make it easier to get proof of the necessary rights having been granted if there's a repository that makes available the names of those who have granted the rights once and for all. Concur. Names will be posted. Ray A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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 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 pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org 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 providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I understood the rules, it is the author that needs to get the necessary rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF. The form appears to give the necessary rights from the original contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org 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 providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I understood the rules, it is the author that needs to get the necessary rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF. The form appears to give the necessary rights from the original contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors. Good point. Probably need to update Trust Policy - I'll check into it. Ray /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Hi - (I trimmed the CC list, assuming that the WG chairs and Trustees that care about this stuff are already listening to the IETF discussion.) From: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org To: Sam Hartman hartm...@mit.edu Cc: Martin Duerst due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp; Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com; Working Group Chairs wgcha...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; Trustees trust...@ietf.org 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 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 pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. ... From this list of names and the content of a pre-5378 RFC, how can a contributor ascertain that that pre-existing work has been licensed in its entirety? Suppose, for example, it contained an extended passage which was submitted to the working group either on a mailing list or hammered out in a face-to-face session, but is not identified as such. Particularly in the latter case (but also in the case of incomplete WG archives) there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way for a contributor to make this determination with much confidence. 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? 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? Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 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-code text. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 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. 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-code text. ___ 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: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
-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, 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 That's right. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Hi - From: Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org 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 permissions are needed. This is good news. 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]. 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-code text. I'm referring to the bits effectively required by the MIB doctors, e.g.: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines a basic set of managed objects for Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)-based management of ... and For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. and various incarnations of this stuff that appear in the text of RFCs that happen to contain MIB modules, not the stuff that's in the MIB modules. (Earlier versions of this were rather lengthy.) Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
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 the MIB doctors, e.g.: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines a basic set of managed objects for Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)-based management of ... and For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. and various incarnations of this stuff that appear in the text of RFCs that happen to contain MIB modules, not the stuff that's in the MIB modules. (Earlier versions of this were rather lengthy.) 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. However, the copyright in such generic phrases is vestigial at best. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
Simon Josefsson skrev: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org 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 providing 5378 licenses to the Trust or their pre-5378 work. If licenses are submitted their names could be posted online for other Contributors to ascertain whether a pre-existing work has been so licensed. How does this help contributors use the older material? As far as I understood the rules, it is the author that needs to get the necessary rights from the original contributor before submitting it to the IETF. The form appears to give the necessary rights from the original contributor to the IETF Trust, not to the authors. If the Trust has those rights, it's licensing them to all participants under the same terms as post-5378 works. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
