RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
Lawrence Rosen
I'm moving this to ie...@ieft.org. There are important policy implications here that the entire community should understand before we let the IPR WG decide for us on a policy so opposite to open source and open standards!
I am also copying this separately to the Open Web Foundation (OWF) list, which I believe may have some interest in ensuring that it can copy and modify IETF specifications for its own standards any time it damn well pleases.
/Larry
> > At 11:18 AM -0700 9/17/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >> Suppose you were to specifically ask whether IETF wants to prevent
> other
> >> SDOs from re-publishing (modified) IETF text within their own specs? Do
> you
> >> expect that the community here really wants to limit the use of IETF
> specs
> >> in that way?
>
> Yes, undoubtedly that was the WG consensus. We don't want to see other
> SDOs
> publishing incompatible versions of our protocols, period. And this is
> not paranoia; it's evidence-based, although I don't want to point the
> finger
> at specific SDOs, since such matters are usually handled by courteous
> bilateral discussions. Using copyright protection is clearly a last
> resort.
>
> >> Why on earth would a volunteer, cooperative standards
> >> organization like IETF want to do that to other volunteer, cooperative
> SDOs?
>
> Becaus our primary mission is to make the Internet work better, which
> requires interoperable protocols, which precludes incompatible versions.
>
> Brian
*********************
Please note: There is an earlier set of emails on this thread in the archives of the IPR WG.
/Larry
*********************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-...@ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:15 PM
> To: ipr...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FW: IETF copying conditions
Brett McDowell
DeWitt Clinton
I'm moving this to ie...@ieft.org. There are important policy implications here that the entire community should understand before we let the IPR WG decide for us on a policy so opposite to open source and open standards!
I am also copying this separately to the Open Web Foundation (OWF) list, which I believe may have some interest in ensuring that it can copy and modify IETF specifications for its own standards any time it damn well pleases.
As many know, I take a strongly pro derivative works position. In fact, I consider that a cornerstone of the open source spirit what we seek to emulate.
-DeWitt
Peter Saint-Andre
> Hi Larry (we were once on a podcast interview with Gabe a long, long
> time ago about the need for IPR policies for the
> at-that-time-not-IP-protected OpenID spec),
>
> Is it your opinion that OWF specifications should be CC (c) licensed in
> a way that allows anyone to create derivative works? Are you aware of
> standards-setting organizations operating under such (c) regimes today
> (does the IETF)?
Please note that CC is not DFSG-safe. We used CC at the XMPP Standards
Foundation and discovered this inadvertently. Therefore we changed our
IPR policy to be MIT license (very slightly modified).
Peter
DeWitt Clinton
From http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses:
In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered to be compatible to the DFSG.
But your observation about the subtle implications of choosing a copyright license is well taken.
-DeWitt
Peter Saint-Andre
> Well, the Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 licenses are now considered
> Debian Free.
>
> From http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses:
>
> In contrast to the CC-SA 2.0 license, version 3.0 is considered to
> be compatible to the DFSG.
Before you draw any conclusions, I suggest that you post to the
debian-legal list about it.
/psa
Eran Hammer-Lahav
But this view is limited to copyrights, not patents. I am skeptical we will be able to ensure free derivative work with regard to patents without getting the original contributors to re-license their IP to the new efforts, if it can no longer be considered a direct implementation (in part of whole). I think this will be one of the problematic areas...
EHL
Gabe Wachob
David Recordon
--David
David Recordon
--David
DeWitt Clinton
-DeWitt
David Recordon
Stephan Wenger
I’m not sure that it would be a good idea to restrict the mark to only the USA, or a small subset of what’s perceived today as the major countries in our business.
Stephan
Gabe Wachob
Lawrence Rosen
Who is going to pay for the filing and maintenance of the trademark?
Our mark can be used anywhere without paying a penny and without asking permission.
In the U.S., it costs nothing to place the letters "TM" next to our mark. That's a good start to protect us here, or to protect us against foreign evil-doers who want to do business here. Federal registration of a trademark is about $300 in the U.S.
Maybe our Paris Convention colleagues can raise money for protection "over there"? :-)
/Larry
Stephan Wenger
(I can envision that Nokia would contribute to OWF funding related to trademarks, within reason and if the environment created by the OWF are to our liking. This is not a commitment, just an expectation by a non-decision-maker.).
Regards,
Stephan
Stephan Wenger
Yes, the TM can be used without payment, and for the registered trademark (indicated by an ®) we are talking about an initial $285, if I recall correctly (plus whatever attorney fees are charged; probably zero in our case as filing for a trademark is a rpiece of cake in the US, and here are enough legally inclined people lingering around who would probably be able to make a filing without a hickup) (Note that this is not necessarily the case elsewhere in the world). But if there were a registered trademark, then it would be downright stupid not to file for Declaration of Use and Declaration of Incontestability (after 5 years), and continued maintenance every ten years, for as long as there is substantial use of OWF-endorsed documents containing the registered mark. The cost of all of that is low compared to patent maintenance, but still, there has to be an organizational structure in place to take care of that maintenance. Good standards have lifetimes considerably beyond 10 years even in our field, and our goal is to create good, long lived standards, not bad ones, right :-)
I think it’s better to have the correct structure (including the funding, processes, etc. etc.) available immediately, rather than attempting to fix problems as they arise. The latter may work well with open source code, but not quite as well with processes or, more generally, any legal stuff.
Yes, companies (and individuals) interested in trademark protection overseas can raise money, and perhaps will do so if the conditions are right. The point I wanted to make is that US-centric thinking is not going to cut very much longer in this industry. Already, Nokia is selling considerably more phones in China or India than in the US. Quite a bit of good coding work is also done in those two countries, or in Europe, or ... If the trademark mechanism is really the chosen tool to differentiate OWF-endorsed document from non-OWF endorsed derivative work, then it’s IMHO imperative to have a bulletproof trademark in these countries---and in others that are major markets for the products that include standards created by communities using the OWF legal framework. This is of particular importance if patent non-asserts are bound to certain OWF-endorsed documents. I don’t think I need to go into details why this so is...
The beauty of copyright is that it is automatically generated and assigned with the generation of the document. And, copyright is recognized by law pretty much everywhere in the world, AFAIK (never mind that certain countries have historically been sloppy in enforcing their laws). Correct me if I’m wrong, but from all I hear, this is NOT the case with trademarks. First, a TM or ® needs to be specifically inserted into a document. Second, it may not be a TM or ® in countries other than the US. In Germany, for example, the ® has essentially the same meaning as in the US, but there is no such lightweight thing as a TM (OTOH, one can get the recognition for a mark by widespread use or by the mark being well known in public). Furthermore, a TM is really an US local thing, and even an US ® is enforceable only in the US, unless the same mark has been registered elsewhere. I believe this is one key reason why most SDOs prefer to protect their document integrity using copyright mechanisms and restrictive copyright licensing, over the trademark approach discussed here. It’s not intended evilness towards open source or something.
One final, not really related note: somewhere I read that there may be a value for a logo program for OWF. If that’s the case, then the logo should IMHO also be trademark protected, just like the trademark “slogan” (we need to have an ascii-only trademark if we ever want to contribute OWF work towards the IETF).
Regards,
Stephan
Stephen Paul Weber
Hash: SHA1
Somebody claiming to be Gabe Wachob wrote:
> I agree with the pro-derivative works leaning.
>
> The right way to address confusion about specs being "standards" or
> even "agreed upon" is through trademark (or Chris Messina's concept of
> a "community mark").
>
> For example, the OWF could insist that the phrase "OWF-Approved
> Specification" only be used in conjunction with specs developed and
> agreed to in accordance to whatever minimal IPR and process
> requirements the OWF comes up with. The power to enforce this should/
> would be based in trademark law, not copyright.
It doesn't seem like something that the law should be brought into at
all... if someone wants to pretend they're OWF when they're not, let
them, let the community decry them and then they lose. No money, no
lawyers.
- --
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
Please see <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFI06kt6oSxepE9BOsRAvsYAJwKNHshDA9feOmXzPKL96RonP6udQCgi9wf
GpDABAwFgLCsxwAx6A/27Ug=
=QQe0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gabe Wachob
http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/01/14/the-case-for-community-marks/
Its an open question whether that is sufficient for OWF, I believe.
-Gabe
Brett McDowell
DeWitt Clinton
What Stephan has outlined here matches with my experience which is my Liberty Alliance has registered (and is prepared to defend) its trademarks in many, many countries (at non-trivial expense).But if OWF Board members don't want to see much money flow through the organization (money is the root of all evil, don't you know) then perhaps this is an opportunity for OWF and IDTBD to collaborate/partner. I'm pretty sure IDTBD will have a trademark program and there must be some efficiencies of scale associated with doing this kind of work in aggregate... especially if OWF Board members don't want to do this themselves but would like to see these marks registered internationally and defended.So, perhaps too early to bring this up now, but in case you are planning your trademark/logo/branding strategy now, here's a data point/option to consider.
I like the idea of OWF working with other groups on some issues like this. There's no reason that the OWF should have to take on every responsibility itself, particularly if we intend to keep this streamlined and low-overhead.
IDTBD is one idea (though I thought that was identity-tech focused?). W3C's new foundation, once that gets off the ground, comes to mind as well.
What are some other organizations that people know of that can provide logistical and or legal support? It's obviously too soon to start talking in terms of formal partnerships (a phrase I always though sounded a little silly vis-a-vis organizations like this), but I wouldn't mind building a census of other orgs that would like to help the OWF out.
-DeWitt
David Recordon
I really like the Jabber Foundation's trademark stuff: http://www.xmpp.org/trademark/guidelines.shtml