From touch at ISI.EDU Tue Sep 4 10:43:56 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 10:43:56 -0700 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim References: Message-ID: <3B9512DC.F83756D0@isi.edu> "Ole J. Jacobsen" wrote: > > The issue of copyright on RFCs and I-Ds comes up over and over and over > again on this list. Would you please read past postings on this topic. > It has been pointed out MANY times that there are specific reasons why > the copyright statements are the way they are. The statements have nothing > whatsoever to do do with "ownership" of the documents in the traditional > copyright sense. This applies to all RFCs regardless of publication date. > All of these documents are "public" and "distribution of this memo is > unlimited". IDs don't have that statement about "public" or "distribution of this memo is unlimited", exactly because distribution _IS_ specifically limited, to 6 months. This too has been pointed out many times, but archives violating that very explicit 'condition of use' provision persist. > The copyright statements are in place to prevent people from > MODIFYING documents and claiming the modified docs have the same status > as the original. Section 10 of RFC 2026 deals with modification, production of derivative works, etc. But it also deals with ownership of the copyright of the document, and its transferal to ISOC - as do specific statements in the suffix of some RFCs, but not all. Joe From ole at cisco.com Tue Sep 4 11:15:32 2001 From: ole at cisco.com (Ole J. Jacobsen) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 11:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim In-Reply-To: <3B9512DC.F83756D0@isi.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Joe Touch wrote: > IDs don't have that statement about "public" or "distribution of this > memo is unlimited", exactly because distribution _IS_ specifically > limited, to 6 months. This too has been pointed out many times, but > archives violating that very explicit 'condition of use' provision > persist. Let's look at the *intent* here. The reason we have IDs with limited lifetime is to allow us to make new (and better) versions and to prevent (or strongly discourage) vendors from claiming conformance to an ID which is a work-in-progress document. I see nothing wrong with an "archivist" preserving old IDs if it is clearly understood that they have expired. Unpublishing published documents is a pretty futile exercise, and not helpful in my opinion. > > > The copyright statements are in place to prevent people from > > MODIFYING documents and claiming the modified docs have the same status > > as the original. > > Section 10 of RFC 2026 deals with modification, production of > derivative works, etc. But it also deals with ownership of the > copyright of the document, and its transferal to ISOC - as do specific > statements in the suffix of some RFCs, but not all. OK, that's fine. There are exceptions, but the statements regarding ISOC on 99% of all of the documents in question were put there to encourage distribution (and copying) rather than prevent it (as copyrights typically do). The discussion on this list typically revolves around "why does ISOC have copyright to RFC?" and "Isn't the XYZ copyright statement better?" Ole > > Joe > From touch at ISI.EDU Tue Sep 4 11:18:17 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 11:18:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim References: Message-ID: <3B951AE9.87D649AE@isi.edu> "Ole J. Jacobsen" wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Joe Touch wrote: > > > IDs don't have that statement about "public" or "distribution of this > > memo is unlimited", exactly because distribution _IS_ specifically > > limited, to 6 months. This too has been pointed out many times, but > > archives violating that very explicit 'condition of use' provision > > persist. > > Let's look at the *intent* here. The reason we have IDs with limited > lifetime is to allow us to make new (and better) versions and to prevent > (or strongly discourage) vendors from claiming conformance to an ID > which is a work-in-progress document. I see nothing wrong with an > "archivist" preserving old IDs if it is clearly understood that they > have expired. Unpublishing published documents is a pretty futile > exercise, and not helpful in my opinion. There is another "intent" - to promote half-baked ideas without having archived versions of them haunt their authors ad infinitum. This was a _specific_ goal of having the timeout, in addition to the ones you mention. That's what's wrong with archiving them. > > > The copyright statements are in place to prevent people from > > > MODIFYING documents and claiming the modified docs have the same status > > > as the original. > > > > Section 10 of RFC 2026 deals with modification, production of > > derivative works, etc. But it also deals with ownership of the > > copyright of the document, and its transferal to ISOC - as do specific > > statements in the suffix of some RFCs, but not all. > > OK, that's fine. There are exceptions, but the statements regarding ISOC > on 99% of all of the documents in question were put there to encourage > distribution (and copying) rather than prevent it (as copyrights typically > do). The discussion on this list typically revolves around "why does ISOC > have copyright to RFC?" and "Isn't the XYZ copyright statement better?" Agreed - for RFCs. But for IDs, the timeout is a specific part of the copyright statement. Joe From dragon at cs.utexas.edu Tue Sep 4 15:55:22 2001 From: dragon at cs.utexas.edu (Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:55:22 -0500 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim Message-ID: <200109042255.RAA20585@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> I personally am glad that the IDs are available somewhere. For anyone interested in the story of the development of a specific protocol, the IDs and the email archive are quite useful. In 1969 and the early 70's, aren't the early RFCs functionally analogous to the IDs? By the way, kudos to the RFC editors for tenaciously working to put all of the missing RFCs online. Any month now, Bob will be announcing that they are all online. Chris -- Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan I'm going to have a "YEAR of the dragon"+1 Computer Sciences, TAY2.124(C0500) My email addresses are: chris at cs.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin or dragon at cs.utexas.edu Austin, TX 78712-1188 URL: www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/ +1 512 471 9546 fax: (471 8885) Office: TAY 4.136 (pls fedex to TAY 2.124) From sla at cs.utexas.edu Tue Sep 4 19:57:32 2001 From: sla at cs.utexas.edu (Stephen Austin) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:57:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ih] Re: Message-ID: confirm 714447 From rms46 at vlsm.org Tue Sep 4 21:05:00 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:05:00 +0700 Subject: [ih] Crossposting History References: <3B9512DC.F83756D0@isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B95A46C.1B44EC81@vlsm.org> Gentlepeople, Since this is an "internet-history" list, I don't believe that the copyright issue should be discussed here. Since I am receiving multiple copies of the same email; I am just wondering on how was the history of cross-posting. Why do people cross post? Possibilities: - it is more confinement just to hit "R" - you don't use .procmail????? - it is faster to send a direct mail, compared through the list - other.... This following is the oldest norm that I could find (from the NAMEDROPPERS list) regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org ===========> .signature at http://rms46.vlsm.org/1/36.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTEL at USC-ISIF -- 2 November 1983 -- NameDroppers -------------------------------------------------- Namedroppers Policy Hi. Please review this policy statement (para 3 particularly). --jon. *** begin *** This NAMEDROPPERS mailing list is to be used for discussion of the concepts, principles, design, and implementation of the domain style names. The main focus of this group is the review of documents describing domain style names. These documents will move through several stages. The discussion in NAMEDROPPERS will be the earliest, subsequently the documents will be made avaliable and discussed in other forums, and eventually they will appear as RFCs. While one of the advantages of computer mail and mailing lists mechanisms is fast response, in this list we prefer to go a little slow to ensure thoughtful discussion. In general, one should let some time go by (say, a day) between first reading a message and composing a response. Even during periods of intense activity on this list one should probably not send more than one message per day. Typically this would allow one to discuss several other contributions in one message. On the other hand, this is a list for participants in a discussion, not observers. Everyone on the list is expected to contribute from time to time. Nearly everyone in NAMEDROPPERS is also on HEADER-PEOPLE and also on MSGGROUP. There is no need to send a message to both NAMEDROPPERS and either of these lists (and certianly not both!). To get on or off NAMEDROPPERS send your request to NAMEDROPPERS-REQUEST at SRI-NIC. To get on or off HEADER-PEOPLE send your request to HEADER-PEOPLE-REQUEST at MIT-MC. To get on or off MSGGROUP send your request to MSGGROUP-REQUEST at BRL. In fact, when sending to NAMEDROPPERS the only address needed is NAMEDROPPERS at SRI-NIC. If you are responding to a particular comment by someone he or she will get the message without being explicitly addressed, and you will get a copy back too. *** end *** From touch at ISI.EDU Thu Sep 6 10:53:06 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 10:53:06 -0700 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim References: <200109042255.RAA20585@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <3B97B802.AD3E7B5F@isi.edu> Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote: > > I personally am glad that the IDs are available somewhere. Unfortunately, I consider them a violation of the conditions of use, and a violation of the authors' copyright. As an author, I have pursued and will continue to pursue my rights on this. While I appreciate the utility of having this information publicly available, much of it is just not in the public domain, and its utility is not the driving factor. Joe From rms46 at vlsm.org Thu Sep 6 23:55:07 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 13:55:07 +0700 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim References: <200109042255.RAA20585@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B97B802.AD3E7B5F@isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B986F4B.B0F0FDD9@vlsm.org> Joe Touch wrote: >> I personally am glad that the IDs are available somewhere. > Unfortunately, I consider them a violation of the conditions of > use, and a violation of the authors' copyright. Fortunately, there is something called "Fair Use" (FL-102) http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl102.pdf Furthermore, most I-D authors consider their work as public domain (when I ask them permission to keep a copy of it). Nevertheless, since there are multiple interpretation of I-D copyright; 2026bis (4026? :-) should make a clearer statement. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org ===========> .signature at http://rms46.vlsm.org/1/36.html From ole at cisco.com Fri Sep 7 06:35:43 2001 From: ole at cisco.com (Ole J. Jacobsen) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 06:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim In-Reply-To: <3B97B802.AD3E7B5F@isi.edu> Message-ID: Let me see if I get this straight: For the first 6 months you want the widest possible distribution, to get comments and feedback. At this stage the document is certainly public if not "in the public domain". Then after 6 months you want the document to be unpublished and un-retreiveable, and anyone serving copies is in violation of copyright. I understand perfectly WHY you want this mechanism and don't disagree with its usefulness, but from a publishing perspective it's really weird. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole at cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Joe Touch wrote: > > > Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote: > > > > I personally am glad that the IDs are available somewhere. > > Unfortunately, I consider them a violation of the conditions of > use, and a violation of the authors' copyright. > > As an author, I have pursued and will continue to pursue > my rights on this. While I appreciate the utility of having this > information publicly available, much of it is just not in the > public domain, and its utility is not the driving factor. > > Joe > From galvin at acm.org Fri Sep 7 08:03:52 2001 From: galvin at acm.org (James M Galvin) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 11:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim In-Reply-To: <3B97B802.AD3E7B5F@isi.edu> Message-ID: Please remove "poised at lists.tislabs.com" from the cc list of this discussion. This mailing list is for discussing POISSON work items and IETF copyright is not a work item. If you want an IETF list on which to continue this discussion use: ietf-process at lists.elistx.com Thank you. Jim -- James M. Galvin On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Joe Touch wrote: Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 10:53:06 -0700 From: Joe Touch To: Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan Cc: Ole J. Jacobsen , Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim , MILIS POISSON , internet-history at postel.org Subject: Re: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote: > > I personally am glad that the IDs are available somewhere. Unfortunately, I consider them a violation of the conditions of use, and a violation of the authors' copyright. As an author, I have pursued and will continue to pursue my rights on this. While I appreciate the utility of having this information publicly available, much of it is just not in the public domain, and its utility is not the driving factor. Joe From touch at ISI.EDU Fri Sep 7 08:51:22 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 08:51:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim References: Message-ID: <3B98ECFA.F8308158@isi.edu> "Ole J. Jacobsen" wrote: > > Let me see if I get this straight: > > For the first 6 months you want the widest possible distribution, to get > comments and feedback. At this stage the document is certainly public if > not "in the public domain". > > Then after 6 months you want the document to be unpublished and > un-retreiveable, and anyone serving copies is in violation of copyright. > > I understand perfectly WHY you want this mechanism and don't disagree > with its usefulness, but from a publishing perspective it's really weird. Having the copyright transfer back to the author after the publisher ceases publication is not uncommon. Certaonly this use of that is unique; that was, in some ways, the point. It was exactly "the lack of persistence" which was sought. Joe From moore at cs.utk.edu Fri Sep 7 09:18:14 2001 From: moore at cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:18:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Sep 2001 11:03:52 EDT." Message-ID: <200109071618.MAA01728@astro.cs.utk.edu> > Please remove "poised at lists.tislabs.com" from the cc list of this > discussion. This mailing list is for discussing POISSON work items and > IETF copyright is not a work item. I assumed that this was implicitly being suggested as a work item. Keith From dpreed at reed.com Sat Sep 8 07:13:33 2001 From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 10:13:33 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History In-Reply-To: <3B986F4B.B0F0FDD9@vlsm.org> References: <200109042255.RAA20585@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B97B802.AD3E7B5F@isi.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010908100207.03175488@mail.reed.com> I realize this may be an obnoxious question, but it would be interesting to determine when (I assume in the 1980's) the community of Internet architects decide that copyright was an affirmative tool in controlling who is allowed to know what about how designs proceeded? In other words, when did a strategy for design discussions other than total transparency first get proposed and when was it taken seriously? Unlike what seems to be happening here in the Internet community, most discourse in science pursues the value of complete openness, with limited exceptions. Any attempts to close scientific discourse (holding closed meetings, refusing to share data for review, ...) are resisted by culture of science. Apparently not so here. IMO it's too bad, YMMV. But the "new culture" seems to have thought it useful to have a copyright mechanism jammed right in the middle of the dialog, to control who can know and use various shared ideas. [copyright is useful for some things, but I explicitly renounce all rights to limit use of this message, in whole or in part, for perpetuity]. From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Sep 10 05:50:16 2001 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:50:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Sep 2001 10:13:33 EDT." <5.1.0.14.2.20010908100207.03175488@mail.reed.com> Message-ID: <200109101250.f8ACoG537924@aland.bbn.com> In message <5.1.0.14.2.20010908100207.03175488 at mail.reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes: >I realize this may be an obnoxious question, but it would be interesting to >determine when (I assume in the 1980's) the community of Internet >architects decide that copyright was an affirmative tool in controlling who >is allowed to know what about how designs proceeded? I don't recall when copyright came into the picture -- I think that was later and as an artefact of being in control of the documents (you had to surrender copyright to the IETF). The Internet-Draft policy of having the document explicitly be ephemeral was, as I recall, a tool designed to manage the standards process by ensuring that ideas either progressed or died, but didn't linger. It was created pre-copyright days according to my (often faulty) memory. Craig From jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu Mon Sep 10 06:58:54 2001 From: jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu (J. Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:58:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Message-ID: <200109101358.JAA08554@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Craig Partridge > "David P. Reed" writes: >> it would be interesting to determine when (I assume in the 1980's) the >> community of Internet architects decide that copyright was an >> affirmative tool in controlling who is allowed to know what about how >> designs proceeded? It's not at all clear to me that this is the case even now, at least in the IETF space. Copyrights are used there to prevent certain abuses, but there is no attempt (that I know of) to prevent anyone from finding anything out. (There are of course cases of private entities using copyright law to try to control the spread of information, both in non-technical [e.g. Co$, Mormons] and technical [uSoft] spheres.) If you disagree, could you please say more about what data about this you have, and how you're interpreting it? > I don't recall when copyright came into the picture -- I think that was > later and as an artefact of being in control of the documents (you had > to surrender copyright to the IETF). Ahem. One doesn't surrender one's copyright to the IETF (sic - actually ISOC); one merely provides them a license. The author still owns the copyright intellectual property (unless of course the terms of their employment made someone elsee's). The ISOC produces a "derivative work" (legal term of art) which they control, and they use their copyright on that separate work to control how the document is used, solely (to date, at least) to prevent abuse - i.e. to make sure that it's not re-published in an edited form which is claimed to be complete. > The Internet-Draft policy of having the document explicitly be ephemeral > was, as I recall, a tool designed to manage the standards process by > ensuring that ideas either progressed or died, but didn't linger. Yes. It was also intended to prevent references to intermediate versions of rapidly-evolving documents. > It was created pre-copyright days according to my (often faulty) memory. Yes. I-D's had that characteristic at their inception (including the long, un-sayable names), which predated the latest copyright stuff by many years. (Although I seem to recall some discussion of how to prevent abuses back when, but I don't recall what, if anything, was done to implement it.) Noel