Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: MIB copyright statement

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:52:52 +0100

So you are saying the MODULE-IDENTITY should include the following
copyright statement:

    "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This version of
     this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for
     full legal notices."

But Mike's point was that the IEEE 802.1 is not assigning copyright
to anyone else, so "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003)." is
misleading.

Would it not be more correct to say:

    "Copyright (C) The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
     Engineers, Inc. (2003). This version of this MIB module is
     part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."

or just:

    "This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx;
     see the RFC itself for full legal notices."

Les...

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 29/07/2003 12:43:00

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   "Bridge-Mib
cc:
Subject:  [Bridge-mib] FW: MIB copyright statement

Since Scott has been diving into this topic so much
in his work for IPR WG, I decided to ask him.
Here is his answer.

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: dinsdag 29 juli 2003 13:07
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: MIB copyright statement

I think you are right (use the same text)

Scott

---

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Les Bell wrote:
> So you [meaning Bert Wijnen and Scott Bradner] are saying the
> MODULE-IDENTITY should include the following copyright statement:
> 

Exactly.

>      see the RFC itself for full legal notices."

The latter would probably be better, but as I said before, this
is the IEEE's MIB module -- we are just republishing it in an
informational RFC to make it more readily accessible -- and so
I think this is really the IEEE's call.

In an earlier message, Les asked:
> Are there any guidelines on the Full Copyright statement that
> should be applied to this document, which re-publishes an
> external document. I should probably ask the IEEE 802.1 WG chair
> for suitable text.

I don't know of any formal guidelines in a BCP document or such,
but there have been cases in the past where standards developed
by other bodies have been republished in informational RFCs.  A
recent example is RFC 3394, Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Key Wrap Algorithm.  Here is its Full Copyright Statement:

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
 are included on all such copies.  However, this document itself may
 not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
 or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
 organizations, except as required to translate it into languages
 other than English.

 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Note the absence of permissions to make derivative works.  The same
(or very similar) language appears in RFCs 2985 and 2986.

In the present case it might be appropriate to have a dual IEEE/ISOC
copyright (for the whole document, not the MIB module -- I think
that the MIB module copyright probably belongs to the IEEE alone).

In any case, please be sure to take note of the following admonition
in draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt:

 A specific request from the IAB is required before the RFC Editor
 can include a dual copyright, or for any other variation of the
 standard ISOC copyright notice.

I think that applies to the RFC3394-type notice as well.

Regards,

Mike Heard

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:55:44 -0400 (EDT)

> to anyone else, so "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003)." is

if the IETF is republishing the material it must have a non-exclusive
grant of copyright to do so so the ISOC copyright is correct - if the IEEE
is not granting that non-exclusive right then the RFC can not be
published

Scott

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:18:18 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:

> > But Mike's point was that the IEEE 802.1 is not assigning
> > copyright to anyone else, so "Copyright (C) The Internet Society
> > (2003)." is misleading.
> 
> if the IETF is republishing the material it must have a
> non-exclusive grant of copyright to do so so the ISOC copyright
> is correct - if the IEEE is not granting that non-exclusive
> right then the RFC can not be published

Well, it's not obvious that a grant of copyright, as opposed to
permission to use the material, is required for republication.

But even if ISOC does get a non-exclusive grant of copyright, the
point still stands that the standard abbreviated MIB copyright
notice would be misleading since it mentions ISOC only, and not
the IEEE, which in this case is the principal copyright holder.

//cmh

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:21:50 -0700 (PDT)

> the IEEE, which in this case is the principal copyright holder.

Another point to be noted is that extraction of a MIB module from
an RFC (or an Internet-Draft) amounts to creation of a derivative
work.  The IEEE can grant permission for the IETF to republish the
MIB module in an informational RFC without necessarily granting
permission for the MIB module to be extracted;  that permission
needs to be granted separately.  Here is an extract from Section
5.2 (entitled "Derivative Works Limitation") of
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06.txt:

   If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right to make
   modifications and derivative works of an Contribution (other than
   translations), one of the two the following notices may be included
   in the Status of memo section of an Internet-Draft and included in a
   published RFC:

   a. "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
      not be created, except to publish it as a RFC and to translate it
      into languages other than English."

   b. "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
      not be created."

   In the cases of MIB or PIB modules and in other cases where the
   Contribution includes material that is meant to be extracted in order
   to be used, the following should be appended to statement 5.2 (a) or
   5.2 (b):

      "other than to extract section XX as-is for separate use."

   Notice 5.2(a) is used if the Contributor intends for the Contribution
   to be published as a RFC.  Notice 5.2(b) is used along with the
   Publication Limitation in Section 5.3 when the Contributor does not
   intend for the Contribution to be published as a RFC.

Again, it seems to me that the IEEE (as owner of the rights to the
MIB module) should be able to determine (a) whether it wants to
allow extraction of the MIB module and if so (b) what copyright
notice and restrictions on use apply.  That's not actually what
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06.txt says, though.  Since that
document is now in Last Call, I shall comment asking to ask that
this apparent omission be rectified.

//cmh