JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
Great! the three stupid points I am stubbornly interested in are
gathered here! Please read what follows with humour, however the three
issues are serious.
1. could someone be kind enough to tell me which RFC forbids to quote
the URL of the currently discussed Drafts, as everyone and netiquette
demand it for every other quote. Even before the supposed mines, this is
probably the most consuming "DoS" in the IETF debate. And does not help
outreach and welcome. No offence intended, but I really think this is
(with correct name spelling) a point for a practical change.
I don't understand the context of your question. All the announcements
about the draft Trust agreement have contained the relevant URL,
which is http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/.
2. I never saw anyone granted rights without corresponding duties. I beg
in vain from you and the IAOC who is legally responsible if an RFC is
judged a legal offense? Who is to pay the fine? Who will go to jail?
Not being a lawyer, I can make no attempt to answer this question.
Only this will tell who really owns the IETF IPRs. I know the RFC 3066
bis rises this issue: is it why no one wants to answer? or is
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/05/minc_icann_letter/ too near an
issue to risk addressing anything associated with the issue?
I fail to see the relevance of this news story to the IETF.
Why my last
IESG appeal with its consequences is not addressed?
Your appeal to the IESG over 3066bis was dealt with.
Currently you have an appeal addressed to an Area Director (hence
not published) about suspension of posting rights, which is
being considered. I am not aware of any other appeals.
3. I have real difficulty understanding why an Internet user/developer
needs to beg an IETF license to use, quote, change, work on an RFC?
I have never noticed anyone begging. But in fact we are quite aware
that the currently published copyright conditions have some problems
and there is work in progres to fix that.
what will happen if he does not? I saw no difference between the Global
Internet Community and the IETF Community until RFC 3935 told me the
later was to influence the former (through legal IPR actions to force
orthodoxy?). Until then I was stupid enough to believe the IETF IPRs
were to protect their open use and the free debate of every Internet
user and developer. Licensing permissions seem totally foreign to an
open use? Unless it is a general permanent and total open use license to
The concern we have is to allow open and free usage but to prevent (or
make legally uncomfortable) distortions and misrepresentations of IETF
specifications. Legally, that turns out to be very complex.
Does someone want to get royalties on TCP/IP (as de facto on
the DNS and on IP addressing)?
Lots of people want to get royalties on their patents.
Or is there a political control because
the "USG financed" the Internet?
If I copy all the RFCs, sort their content, add a legal blabla paying my
respects to all those who contributed through the IETF, make an open use
e-book from them all, class their proposition in some orders, updating
it when they change, mixing them with other SSDOs propositions, etc.
translating parts in various languages, adding comments on their usage
cons and pros and testing, linking the various comments people may have
made on them, etc. quoting available open source/commercial libraries
and their variations, etc. and the various registry repositories where
they can find the values of the related parameters, i.e. what the users
long for a while, will the IAOC sue me and send me to jail as the US
DMCA and the French DADVSI would do?
Somehow, I doubt it. But on the other hand, if you used RFC text as the
basis for a non-interoperable, slightly distorted Internet-like
protocol specification that started to damage the Internet operationally,
the copyright might come into play.
Ietf mailing list