Subject: Re: Copying conditions

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:35:50 +0100

[email-masked] (scott bradner) writes:

>   For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454 and use
>   them in my implementation.
>
>   For Kerberos, I want to be able to use the ASN.1 schema in my
>   implementation, and copy the terminology section into my manual.
>
>   For SASL, I want to incorporate portions of the introduction section
>   from the RFC into my manual, to make sure some terminology is
>   explained correctly.
>
>   For GSS-API, I want to be able to copy the C header file with function
>   prototypes into my implementation.
>
> just so there is no misunderstanding - the intent of RFC 3668 was to
> permit such extractions and there was (and is) no desire to restrict 
> such extractions
>
> I, as editor, state publicly that I think that RFC 3667 permits such 
> extractions, we (or maybe I) may have not made that clear enough in
> RFC 3667, but I think that RFC 3667 supports these uses

I have received preliminary feedback from IPR specialists that seem to
indicate to me that neither the old RFC copying conditions, nor the
new copying conditions in RFC 3667, would permit all of the above
extractions into free software.

I am working on getting them to explain their reasoning on the Free
Software Foundation's web pages (presumably at [1]), which I believe
would be useful input for the IPR working group, but the process has
been slow.  I hope I'm not putting words in their mouth by stating
that my interpretation of what they said is that there is a problem.

Do the IETF care about free software enough to work on modifying the
copying conditions of future RFCs?

I think it is worrying that for me, with no legal training, I cannot
find any way to read the current license to permit me to do the above
things.  Now it seems some specialists agree with my interpretation.
To my reading, the new conditions do not give me any rights at all.

I'm hesitant about basing the legal ground of my projects against my
own, and our specialists, interpretation, based only on your expressed
intent of the text, posted to a mailing list.  My only "protection"
seem to be that would the ISOC/IETF sue me for infringing on their
IPR, I can only hope that others in the community would react
negatively.  I'd like to have more assurance than that, if possible.

Thanks,
Simon

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:07:07 -0500

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> [email-masked] (scott bradner) writes:
    >> For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454
    >> and use them in my implementation.
    >> 
    >> For SASL, I want to incorporate portions of the introduction
    >> section from the RFC into my manual, to make sure some
    >> terminology is explained correctly.
    >> 
    >> For GSS-API, I want to be able to copy the C header file with
    >> function prototypes into my implementation.
    >> 
    >> just so there is no misunderstanding - the intent of RFC 3668
    >> was to permit such extractions and there was (and is) no desire
    >> to restrict such extractions
    >> 
    >> I, as editor, state publicly that I think that RFC 3667 permits
    >> such extractions, we (or maybe I) may have not made that clear
    >> enough in RFC 3667, but I think that RFC 3667 supports these
    >> uses

    Simon> I have received preliminary feedback from IPR specialists
    Simon> that seem to indicate to me that neither the old RFC
    Simon> copying conditions, nor the new copying conditions in RFC
    Simon> 3667, would permit all of the above extractions into free
    Simon> software.

    Simon> I am working on getting them to explain their reasoning on
    Simon> the Free Software Foundation's web pages (presumably at
    Simon> [1]), which I believe would be useful input for the IPR
    Simon> working group, but the process has been slow.  I hope I'm
    Simon> not putting words in their mouth by stating that my
    Simon> interpretation of what they said is that there is a
    Simon> problem.

    Simon> Do the IETF care about free software enough to work on
    Simon> modifying the copying conditions of future RFCs?

Speaking as an individual, *not* as an AD, I'd love to see the free
software community get together and give input to the IETF (possibly
in the form of an informational RFC) on the following issues:

1) Extracting tables and code from IETF standards for use in free/open-source software.

2) What patent holders who would like to license software should do if
   they want to create a license that open-source/free software
   authors can use when licensing technology in Internet standards.

Such input should explain what the requirements are and should give
both legal and practical reasoning to justify them.  Such input should
avoid trying to criticize or demand changes in the IETF, but instead
should focus on what the IETF would need to do if we need to make
parts of our RFCs extractable or what patent holders would need to do
to make licenses useful to the free software community.  I would
strongly recommend avoiding discussion of the general patent policies
of the IETF; arguments that the IETF should not use patented
technology will only serve to annoy people who might otherwise listen
to what you have to say.

I'd recommend that any such input accurately represent at least the
following parties positions':

1) The Free Software Foundation

2) The Open Source Initiative

3) The Debian Project

I believe all three of these parties have slightly incompatible views
on the issues in question.  It would be very frustrating to consider
such input only to discover that some segment of the open source
community still felt we had not addressed their concerns even though
the input was represented as complete.

If you do get free software people to talk to the IETF about IPR,
please find people who can work well in the consensus process.  People
who are good at explaining and understanding are better than people
who have firm convictions and are good at arguing.  However when
explaining the needs of external communities participants would need
to actually accurately represent these needs.  It would be unfortunate
if we came to a compromise that was acceptable to everyone involved in
the consensus process only to find that it was unacceptable to the
external community.

Good luck,

--Sam

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:16:13 +0100

In general, I support your goal of permitting free software to fully
use IETF standards.  A few specific comments below, which should be
taken as encouragement to continue and refine the terms, not criticism
against the whole approach.

"Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]> writes:

>    1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official specification
>       for an open standard under an open source license.

I would include "modify" in this clause, or clarify exactly which
license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).

If I want to include portions of an RFC in my software manual (e.g., a
terminology section), I want my users to have the right to modify that
portion of the manual and re-distribute the derived work.

I don't feel qualified to comment on the remaining patent related
points.

> If you think it would be useful to submit these five Open Standards
> Principles as an informational RFC, certainly I can do that. But perhaps
> they can be discussed here first in their current form without that
> formality. I welcome comments and suggestions.

If there is no broad discussion of these issues, perhaps publishing a
discussion of them as an informational RFC is the right thing.

I think the first goal here should be to make sure the IETF is aware
of the problem wrt free software.  Given the earlier discussion in
this thread, some IPR WG participants appeared to not even be aware
that there is a problem, which I found surprising if not disturbing.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Anthony DeRobertis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 05:04:46 -0500

> license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).

The GFDL is not an open-source or free software licence.

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:53:52 -0800

>    authors can use when licensing technology in Internet standards.

I addressed your two items in the Open Standards Principles I emailed to
this list earlier this week. These principles describe the licenses that
must apply to copyrighted and patented IP in IETF specifications in order to
make them compatible with free and open source software.

With respect to copyrighted works (your item #1) contained in IETF
specifications to be used in free/open source software:

With respect to patent claims (your item #2) necessary to implement IETF
specifications in free/open source software:

   2. Everyone is free to make or use embodiments of an open standard 
      under unconditional licenses to patent claims necessary to 
      practice that standard.
   
   3. Everyone is free to distribute externally, sell, offer for sale, 
      have made or import embodiments of an open standard under patent
      licenses that may be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to 
      any of licensees' patent claims necessary to practice that standard.

   4. A patent license for an open standard may be terminated as to any
      licensee who sues the licensor or any other licensee for infringement
      of patent claims necessary to practice that standard. 

   5. All patent licenses necessary to practice an open standard are 
      worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual and sublicenseable.

/Larry Rosen

Lawrence Rosen 
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 
email: [email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Sam Hartman
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Copying conditions
> 
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:40:45 -0500

> license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).

IMHO, if "modify" is allowed, the license must require that modified 
versions are clearly distinguished from the official spec and thereby 
not-the-standard-you-were-looking-for.

						- Bill

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:31:57 -0500

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> In general, I support your goal of permitting free software
    Simon> to fully use IETF standards.  A few specific comments
    Simon> below, which should be taken as encouragement to continue
    Simon> and refine the terms, not criticism against the whole
    Simon> approach.

    Simon> "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> 1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official
    >> specification for an open standard under an open source
    >> license.

    Simon> I would include "modify" in this clause, or clarify exactly
    Simon> which license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free
    Simon> Documentation License).

We've been over this before.  In my mind, there is not a consensus to
revise this part of the IETF IPR policy at this time.  I'm not the
chair of the IPR working group; this is just my opinion.

However by conflating issues where you could get support with issues
where you cannot get support you frustrate everyone and cause a lot of
us to want to ignore you.  If the open source community cannot work
within the IETF process in a spirit of compromise and consensus
building then that community will not make significant progress within
the IETF process.

Simon, you've identified a real issue the free software community has
using our standards.  If you do the leg work or find others who are
interested in doing the leg work, you have a good chance at getting
the problem you've identified fixed.  However if you tie fixing that
problem to other much more controversial issues, I doubt you will
succeed.

--Sam

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:26:45 -0800

> not-the-standard-you-were-looking-for.

Thank you for this suggestion. I'm fine with adding the word "modify" if
that will clarify these Open Standards Principles. The words "under an open
source license" later in that sentence includes all the rights conveyed by
an open source license, such as the right to modify and distribute copies of
the specification, but saying it explicitly here makes good sense.

All open source licenses permit modification. IETF should also decide
whether to distribute its specifications under the GPL, OSL, SISSL or other
open source license that includes reciprocity, or under an academic license
that permits proprietary modifications of the specifications themselves.
 
Please note that the open source copyright license described in Principle 1
that applies to the specification itself may not be sufficient for you to
make, use or sell your modified, non-conforming versions. That is because
the affirmative patent licenses described in Principles 2 and 3 may be
limited in scope to "embodiments of an open standard." You may need to
obtain additional patent licenses from other companies in order to implement
non-standard functions in your software.

Almost all patent owners insist upon such field of use limitations in their
patent licenses for standards. Take a look at the patent statements filed
with the IETF and other standards organizations and you'll see this over and
over from most major companies. Open source can live with this; we already
agreed to do so in W3C.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen