Intellectual Property Rights WG Meeting : IETF 70, Tuesday December 4, 2007, 0900-1130 Location : Vancouver, Canada Chair : Harald Alvestrand Minutetaker: Joel Halpern Version : 1.2 ===================================================================== Formatting notes: - Resolutions are marked by *** - Jabber input channeled by someone else is marked as (David Black) (name in parentheses). * Administrivia Review Agenda Note Well was presented Comment: Presenting at start of all sessions is a good idea. That was the effect when we used overhead projector Agenda Bash - None * Status -incoming and -outbound are in last call until December 17 2007. * incoming issues list of issues and proposed resolutions. Issue 1511: (back-license to authors) John Klensin - would strongly prefer an author retaining rights rather than a back-license as resolved by 1511, but he can live with the back-license in the text. Issue 1515: (meaning of "contributor") Scott Bradner - the use of the term "contributor" has always been fuzzy. We do need to fix it. Bradner - Clarifying which contributor is meant by specific parts of the language in the document. So we may need to do more work to get the language right. "Indirect Contributor" is probably not sufficient. Scott Brim - We should at least fix the local problem, i.e. make the local text consistent in its language use even if that doesn't fix all of the conceptual / global problems of the term "contributor" John Klensin - We can not leave this ambiguous in this document. Discussion of how to fix the text. (Scott Bradner, Joel Halpern, Stefan Vegan, Harald Alvestrand, John Klensin.) Discussion of using alternative terms. Or using captialization to distinguish different kinds of contributors Or putting in qualifications of terms *** Resolution - let Scott Bradner and Jorge try to come up with a proposal, and take it to the list. Agreed that something needs to be done. Issue 1516: Scott Bradner - text is to allow retroactive noticing that rules have been violated. Specific section references seem to be wrong. *** Resolution: Make it reference section 5 as a whole. Barry Leiner channelling (David Black) - We are missing a work-for-hire issue. Scott Bradner - Section 3.2 that contributors have the authority to contribute should cover work for hire. (David Black) - We need to exlicitly address the work for hire, not assume it is covered. *** Resolution: - to be checked with Jorge. All resolutions will be taken to the list. Proposed resolutions not minuted above were accepted for now. Instructions to the Trust Olaf took an action item to ensure that the IAOC is / will be aware that they need to issue the various forms of license, etc... Scott Brim - "define a textually representation" is grammatically improper. Joel Halpern - Yes, I will fix draft Review of charter items Suggestion to remove "IPR Advice" document Updating target dates * New items-- Possible outcomes for each proposal: - Good idea, go forward without the working group - Good idea, become a working group item (possible recharter needed) æ Bad idea, drop item * draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds Presentation by Scott Brim Caveat - Scott actually disagrees with the proposal Scott's concern is that using "free" in the document is a bad idea because "free" means 5 different things, passionately, to different groups of people. Phillip Hallam-Baker - Concern is that a particular individual has claimed the right to define "free", and seems to live in a different reality than many others of us. Maybe use the term "open". John Klensin - Asks if anyone thinks this (IPR work) is fun. Is this kind of question (updating process to add "free" to criteria) actually useful. Scott Bradner - This text is completely useless. DS doesn't get used enough to matter (newtrack was trying to address that.) And this change doesn't say anything. Just don't do it. It isn't a big deal. A few things have encumberance. Stephan Wenger - Opposed to doing anything. Would render the standards track mechanism problematic. Objects to both the original text and the Scott's alternative. Joel Halpern - I don't see any reason to do this (or any variation) at all. Harald Alvestrand - Suggestion to punt to the IESG, based on the requirement to determine independent implementations. They can consider the existence of open source as evidence of acceptable licenses. John Klensin - Do not create less incentive to move to draft standard. Imagine the complexity of revising / advancing for working on stuff that is existing draft / full standard. Scott Bradner - On the evaluation of licensing process, changing the rules is indeed not fun. The only time the licensing issue came up was an appeal. And that appeal never actually resolved this question. This "code" in ssection 4.1.2 of RFC 2026 has never been executed, but Harald's idea seems to be covered without text changes. Scott Brim - Remove this from the table. *** Resolution - the room overwhelmingly preferred dropping the proposal. * draft-hallambaker-ipr-patent-harmonization Presentation by Phillip Hallam-Baker Discussion of incompatiblity, as described in the draft, between patent licensing and open software. General thrust is that clear expectations helps things work. Ted Hardie - disagrees with assertions about Marid history and working group history. Suggestion to focus on proposal rather than on perceptions of history. Stefan Vegan - Discussing that encumbered patents may still be useful, particularly if the products matter. And patents are there for reasons. Pointing out that rewarding patents may not be unfair. Phillip - arguing the distinction between the value of the patent vs the value of the encumbered standard. John Klensin - Discussion not useful or effective. Addressing flaws in the base patent system is not the IETFs job. Terminology causes major issues. Slide uses the term "standards must be open" while "open standard" usually means something very different from the slides. Joel Halpern - Does not like the proposal at all. It does not actually solve the problem, or help us. Phillip - commercial cases vs defensive patents are different Stephan Wenger - No, the different classes are not as cleanly different as you assert. W3c policy works well in the W3C ecosystem. That is not the same ecosystem as the IT industry or the IETF. So following the proposal to simply import the W3C policy into the IETF would be very disruptive. Ted Hardie - W3C policy has caused people not to participate in the W3C. Thus, adoption here would restrict participation. Overloading the IESG further with managing the patent policy would also be a bad idea. W3C terms imply a committment to license if one is a "member". Scott Bradner - What is the problem statement. Defensive patents can become offensive patents. We can not know what a patent attorney and some expert will claim a patent covers. So this proposal does not solve any known problem. (David Black) - agrees with Ted that participation in W3C is a last resort for him because of the policies. And it puts lawyers in critical path for WG formation. Phillip - isn't it better to get it solved before WG formation Scott Bradner - No Stefan - also No to Phillip. The reality is MUCH more complicated and things are not knowable at that time. Pre-commitments to licensing would probably lead to his companies non-participation. (David Black) - also no to Phillip's question. John Klensin - W3C has very different business and membership model, and the policies from there just won't work here. The proposal on the table is for a fundamental change in what the IETF is, and is a bad idea. *** Resolution - the rooms preference is to drop the proposal. * draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto Presentation by Ted Hardie It is a spec describing one way to do something that is likely to succeed. It probably still needs some work and separation of concerns, but it is a valuable piece of advice. Ted Hardie - suggestion that arranging legal review would be helpful, so as to confirm that the document achieves its objectives. Stephan Wenger - Concerned that if this is used it may not be possible for commercial vendors to use the technologies. Sees value in the work, but not as a working group item. (David Black) - Lawyer time comes with an opportunity cost. Having said that, he likes the draft and thinks it is worth the lawyer time. He also thinks it is worth WG time. Harald - Are the terms, which the document says are good for open source, actually good for open source? In particular, there has been some ambiguity about whether reciprocity actually meets the goal. Scott Bradner - Supports working group time on it. The idea is worth work, but the document needs work. John Klensin - In favor of the general ideas, in favor of legal review, in favor of people collaborating with Simon, and probably in favor of eventual RFC publication. But would strongly prefer to terminate the working group. Scott Brim - Favors work on the document, on the WG mailing list but not as a WG item. Harald - Summarizing administrivia - If WG item, then it goes forward with WG consensus. Without WG, it is whatever the author chooses. We can keep the mailing list open after WG closes. John Klensin - Suggests using a different mailing list. Also, it should be faster without a WG. Exchange about whether the term "free standards" is the right terminology for the document. Phillip - concern about the title being "guidelines." John Klensin - Amateur lawyering has already started. Resolution - That the work go forward as an indivual item (some folks thought it should be dropped, about 13 - 0 - 3.) Further, the room recommends that the IETF should ask the lawyers to spend some time on reviewing this work. Discussion of what mailing list should be used for this. John Klensin - a focussed mailing list for just this issue. *** Resolution - room supports a focused mailing list for this. By the end of the meeting, Scott Bradner had already submitted a revision of the incoming draft.