Subject: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:28:17 -0400

All

  The redline of the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents dated  
9-8-08 has been uploaded to http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html 
  in doc, pdf and rtf formats.

These changes have been made as a result of comments received since  
the version posted on 8-13-08:

4.1.a -- fixes the link to the list of code components,

4.1.c -- clarifies that the BSD license is the only license applicable  
to the use of code for processing by a computer, and that the licenses  
in Section 3 apply only to code as part of documents for review by  
people.

4.1.d -- makes attribution of code optional to avoid inconsistency  
with the BSD license.

Also, cites to www.ietf.org/trust have been changed to  
trustee.ietf.org/ to reflect current URL.

The Trustees plan to adopt a policy regarding Legal Provisions  
Relating to IETF Documents on 18 September.  Comments must be received  
prior to that date to be considered.

Ray Pelletier
Trustee
IAD

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:58:04 +0200

Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]> writes:

> 9-8-08 has been uploaded to
> http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html in doc, pdf and rtf
> formats.

Thanks for posting an update, Ray.

There are two regressions from earlier versions:

#1:

The new text in section 4.c. introduce a regression over earlier
documents.  Quoting the new text:

        c.  License. When Code Components are copied, published,
        displayed or distributed as part of a document that is intended
        to be read or referenced by persons, and not for direct
        processing by a computer, they are licensed under the terms set
        forth in Section 3 of these Legal Provisions. When Code
        Components are copied, published, displayed or distributed for
        direct processing by a computer, they are hereby licensed to
        each person who wishes to receive such a license on the terms of
        the “BSD License”, as follows:

This confuses the definition of "code component".  With the above text,
the following

  <CODE BEGINS>
  // increment a
  a = a + 1
  <CODE ENDS>

begs the question whether the code component is intended to be read by
persons or by a computer, and the answer to that question leads to
different licenses for the work.

It could be argued that code in a textual document are intended for use
by persons.  The consequence of that argument is that no code in IETF
documents would be covered by the BSD license.

It could be argued more strongly that comments in code components are
intended for humans, and thus would not be licensed under the BSD
license.  It is valuable to be able to copy comments in source code into
external code.  With the new text, that is not possible.

The distinction of code components intended to be used by persons or
intended for use by computers have not been discussed before.  It is not
part of the instructions in outbound-rights-07 as far as I can tell.

Again, I want to quote the instructions given to the Trust about code
components in outbound-rights-07:

   As such, the rough consensus is that the IETF Trust is to grant
   rights such that code components of IETF contributions can be
   extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any way desired.

There are no qualifications of the intended use by such code components
in the instructions.

I see the new text as a "field of use" restriction.  The IPR WG have
discussed field of use restrictions of the code license many times, and
the result has always been that field of use restrictions are a bad
idea.

Finally, the current text is also internally inconsistent with the
text in 4.a:

        a.  Definition. IETF Contributions and IETF Documents often
        include components intended to be directly processed by a
        computer (“Code Components”). A list of common Code Components
        can be found at
        http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Code_Components_List_8-12-08.txt .

Thus by definition Code Components are intended to be processed by a
computer, and the new text in section 4.c does not make sense.

Solution to problem
-------------------

I suggest to remove the newly added text, making section 4.c read:

        c.  License. Code Components are hereby licensed to each person
        who wishes to receive such a license on the terms of the “BSD
        License”, as follows:

Without this change, I believe it is not sufficiently clear that code
components are _only_ licensed under the BSD license.

#2:

Regarding 4.b.  A fix you made to address one of my earlier comments
have regressed.  I brought this up in my initial review of the document,
see #4 in:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5360

The problem was fixed in the 07-17-08 version which used this text:

    For ease of reference, Code Components in IETF RFCs MUST be clearly
    identified as code, and one technique for clearly identifying it is
    <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS>.

The text is similar in the 08-05-08 version.  However, the text in the
08-13-08 version changed this, and my concern re-surface.  The latest
text says:

     b.  Identification. Text in IETF Contributions and IETF Documents
     of the types identified in Section 4.a above shall constitute
     “Code Components”. In addition, any text found between the
     markers <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> shall be considered a “Code
     Component”.

The problem is that it is impossible to textually describe that parts of
documents are intended as code components.  Allowing this would simplify
reading of documents and avoids ugly markups which can become excessive.
Consider a document that contains:

  Appendix A.
    This sections in this Appendix contains a pseudo code implementation
    of the twenty parts of the FOOBAR algorithm.  Each part is intended to
    be treated as a Code Component as described by
    [IETF-Trust-Legal-Provisions].
  Appendix A.1.
    ...
  Appendix A.2
    ...
  Appendix A.20

This reads much better than having to use <CODE BEGIN>..<CODE END>
inside each and every appendix.

Thus, I suggest to change the above sentence to:

        b.  Identification. Text in IETF Contributions and IETF
        Documents of the types identified in Section 4.a above shall
        constitute “Code Components”. In addition, any text found
        between the markers <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> shall be
        considered a “Code Component”.  Alternatively, text in the
        document that refer to this rule can be added to denote which
        portions are intended to be regarded as Code Components.

You could also revert to the earlier text used in the 08-05-08 and
08-13-08 version:

        b.  Identification. For ease of reference, Code Components in
        IETF RFCs MUST be clearly identified as code, and one technique
        for clearly identifying it is <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS>.

One final comment:

#3:

For good style, attribute the origin of the BSD license text used.  If
the IETF requests of others to attribute origins of work, setting a good
example helps.  According to Jorge in
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5379> the source is:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:48:42 -0700

At 9:58 AM +0200 9/9/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>         who wishes to receive such a license on the terms of the "BSD
>         License", as follows:
>

Fully agree.

>         constitute "Code Components". In addition, any text found
>         considered a "Code Component".  Alternatively, text in the

Either sounds good, and the latter is more in line with IETF history.

>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Eating our own dogfood: good.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:58:38 +0200

Hi,

>   in doc, pdf and rtf formats.

To see what changes would be needed in 'idnits', I've looked over the
instructions for text to be included in IETF documents (Section 6 of the
document referred to above).

I see that Section 6.a. specifies the following text:

	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF pursuant to, and in full
	conformance with, the provisions of [BCP 78 and 79].

and also Section 6.b. specifies this text:

	Copyright [year] IETF Trust and the persons identified as its authors.
	All rights reserved.

	This document is subject to BCP [78] and [the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions
	Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this
	document]. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
	rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

So here are my questions:

It is clear to me that in the text above, the notation "[year]" is not meant
to be literal, but should be replaced with the current year.

However, what is the meaning of "[BCP 78 and 79]"?  If it is meant to be included
verbatim, it could be meant to indicate that there should be a reference in the
reference section called "BCP 78 and 79", or maybe two references called "BCP 78"
and "BCP 79"?

But then we come to the second paragraph of the 6.b. text, which has the
text "BCP [78]" -- is this now meant to refer to a reference called "78"?

Finally, there's the "[the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents in effect on the date of publication of this 	document]" -- is that
meant to be replaced by a reference to the actual document in effect at
that day, or is it meant to be inserted verbatim in the documents?

I'm afraid that it isn't at all clear to me exactly what the boilerplate as
specified by this revision of the Legal Provisions document should look like.

I'd suggest the following:

 * Say explicitly that the notation [year] should be replaced by the year the
   document is submitted or published, and likewise for any other text that
   should be replaced.

 * Remove any other "[" and "]" characters from text that must be included
   verbatim.

 * If it is required that references to BCP 78 and BCP 79 be included in the
   document's reference section, say so explicitly.

 * Indicate whether it is permissible to add reference annotation, in the
   style otherwise used for references in the document, to the boilerplate,
   or whether that should not be done. (Don't force the document author to
   use a particular style of reference annotation, such as "[BCP 78]" if the
   rest of the document uses "[1]", "[2]", etc. ).

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:44:15 -0700

Why cant a code object or any embedded licensable IP object be included 
under a 'instantaneous' copyright which is noted at the close of the <CODE> 
block. Why cant we build a code model where the code itself includes a 
separate (c) if its warranted? - this totally allows the inclusion of 
copyrighted IP into IETF processes without messing up too much...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>; "Ray Pelletier" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "IAOC" <[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

> Eating our own dogfood: good.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1662 - Release Date: 9/9/2008 
10:47 AM

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:31:17 -0400

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:44:15 -0700
"TS Glassey" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Why cant a code object or any embedded licensable IP object be
> included under a 'instantaneous' copyright which is noted at the
> close of the <CODE> block. Why cant we build a code model where the
> code itself includes a separate (c) if its warranted? - this totally
> allows the inclusion of copyrighted IP into IETF processes without
> messing up too much...
> 
That's a fair question.  The intent is to restrict the allowable forms
of copyright -- we don't want certain classes of restrictions in RFCs,
because they limit the utility of the code.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:00:44 -0400

Just to be clear:  there is only one type of copyright.  It is created
by statute.  There are many different types of copyright licenses,
however.  And I think that's what is being discussed here.  This being
said, I agree with Steve.  The IPR-WG has settled on the BSD license for
licensing Code Components, which is a very open, flexible model.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Steven M. Bellovin
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:31 AM
> To: TS Glassey
> Cc: Simon Josefsson; IETF Discussion; IAOC; Paul Hoffman; 
> [email-masked]
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>