[05:04:01] --- Simon Josefsson has joined
[15:24:27] --- becarpenter has joined
[15:24:44] * becarpenter has changed the subject to: IETF66 meeting
[15:24:49] --- psavola has joined
[15:24:56] --- joelmhalpern has joined
[15:25:01] --- josoinin has joined
[15:25:15] <joelmhalpern> Bradner describing -06 of the inbound rights document
[15:25:32] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: Update states which parts are normative
[15:25:52] --- smb has joined
[15:25:55] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: Removed comment on copyright on "collective work"
[15:26:23] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: added text moving the boilerplate to a separate URL
[15:26:58] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: URL points to a timestamped archive of boilerplates
[15:27:29] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: AD asked for instructions to IETF trust to grant the rights needed to run the IETF processes to IETF participants
[15:27:49] <becarpenter> simon: can you hear audio
[15:28:08] <joelmhalpern> David Black: Asking about exactly what the URL points to
[15:28:09] --- gtw has joined
[15:28:44] --- gtw has left
[15:29:10] --- gtw has joined
[15:29:29] <joelmhalpern> Brian Carpenter: draft says boilerplate must go into documents. Could documents just point to the boilerplate URL?
[15:30:13] <joelmhalpern> repeat-Simon: Can you hear the audio so I don't have to try to transcribe q&a?
[15:30:20] <Simon Josefsson> i have a collision with the sasl wg. will get back here asap, but probably won't be able to participate much.
[15:31:08] <joelmhalpern> Discussion of the meaning of "outbound", and that this document covers the IETF necessary rights, but that a separate document will cover outbound rights.
[15:31:41] <joelmhalpern> This document does not discuss the issues of old documents whose rights state may need work.
[15:35:15] --- klensin has joined
[15:35:39] <joelmhalpern> Jorge clarifying the flow of intellectual property, and impact on trust.
[15:36:16] <gtw> are the slides being discussed available anywhere?
[15:36:47] <smb> I don't think so
[15:40:34] <smb> no, they're not. I just sent my "chair" slides to the mailing list.
[15:42:02] <joelmhalpern> Jorge notes that "notices" need to be easy to find.
[15:45:13] <joelmhalpern> Bill Fenner asking about whether it is actually a good idea to move boilerplate to a URL
[15:45:14] --- hartmans has joined
[15:46:32] <joelmhalpern> Fenner: Maybe it is better for it to be hard to change the boilerplate, because every change is a mess.
[15:48:46] <joelmhalpern> Lucy Lynch expressing concern about dependence on this working group and the time it takes, which is affecting the trust and the trust's ability to do what it needs to.
[15:49:06] <joelmhalpern> -- aside -- are there those who are reading this and not getting the audio?
[15:50:20] <hartmans> Ye.
[15:50:39] <hartmans> I could try getting the audio but it would be easier to follow the session I'm in without audio here
[15:50:42] <joelmhalpern> Okay. I'll try to keep noting topics.
[15:51:15] <joelmhalpern> Discussion areed that helping the trust meet its committments to be the holder of IPR is reasonable.
[15:51:33] <joelmhalpern> Brian: Pointing out that boilerplate is a problem with folks who are not using maintained tools
[15:51:54] <gtw> Joel, appreciate your note taking, thnx
[15:53:12] <joelmhalpern> Paul Hoffman: Regarding URLs for boilerplate There is a huge concern about using URLs for boilerplate.
[15:53:30] <joelmhalpern> Paul Hoffman: Surprising number of people were concerned about what URL was used.
[15:53:42] <joelmhalpern> smb: The placement of boilerplate will go to the mailing list.
[15:54:35] <joelmhalpern> smb: Proposed policy - Code excerpts MUST be modifiable, with no purpose limitations.
[15:55:19] <joelmhalpern> smb: Further, the IETF does not object to including such code excerpts in GPL code. But that does not affect the authors, and authors may need to be checked with.
[15:55:51] <joelmhalpern> David Black: Suggests refinement of wording to generalize from GPL to open source.
[15:56:11] <joelmhalpern> smb / DB: discussing general viral license allowance -- wordsmith off line
[15:56:49] <joelmhalpern> smb: checks hands for support or opposition to the code excerpt item.
[15:57:46] <joelmhalpern> Thomas Narten: raised question about the value of the bullet about granting GPL rights, particularly, the part where we say that we do not force authors to grant such rights. More discussion on list
[15:58:15] <hartmans> I am in favor of exerpts
[15:58:24] <joelmhalpern> smb: traditional policy is that text excerpts must not be modified.
[15:58:28] <hartmans> And more or less any outbound rights but you knew that.
[15:58:47] <becarpenter> sam: you mean code excerpts?
[15:59:36] <joelmhalpern> smb: thinks there is mailing list consensus to retain that policy
[16:00:05] <joelmhalpern> Discussion about whether we have that consensus. Consensus will be rechecked on the list.
[16:01:04] <joelmhalpern> David Black: Raises question as to how these decisions would affect Simon's examples.
[16:02:11] <hartmans> Brian, I mean code exerpts, and practically nay other outbound rights that are not about fraud
[16:02:14] <joelmhalpern> Elwyn raising question of recognizing code
[16:03:59] <joelmhalpern> Eric Grey asked how there could be modifications?
[16:04:21] <joelmhalpern> Joel Halpern commented that there can be large excerpts and modifies part of it.
[16:04:47] <joelmhalpern> David Black Further points otu that it is about text which is clearly derived from the RFC. (and again, this is about text, not code.)
[16:06:45] <joelmhalpern> David Black adding a rats nest he doesn't want to discuss. There is fair use, in the US (and some toehr places). We can't take that away here. And we are not going to try to figure out or rely on what uses that would allow, or to whom.
[16:06:46] --- klensin has left: Disconnected
[16:07:44] <joelmhalpern> smb: checks for consensus in room on non-modification of text excerpts. It will go back to the list.
[16:07:49] <joelmhalpern> Now on to author rights.
[16:08:49] <joelmhalpern> This is driving to the question of what copyright statements need to / are permitted to go on documents.
[16:09:23] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: Current rules say that multiple copyright notices are only allowed for work with other SDOs.
[16:10:32] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: One can put in other notices which say that the document is in the public domain, which is not a copyright statement.
[16:11:16] <joelmhalpern> Black: Concerned that allowing authors to "disclaim" anything may allow unexpected results.
[16:11:43] <joelmhalpern> Narten: Raising the point that odd copyright notices mean that people (IESG) have to figure out what they mean and what the impact.
[16:13:22] <hartmans> So, I think odd copyright messages are OK if it is dual licensed, but not if other copyright messages are allowed to modify the license.
[16:13:48] <joelmhalpern> Brian C: Points out tht the second bullet (Authors reatin other rights) is always inherent. smb agrees but says that it is useful to say.
[16:14:10] <joelmhalpern> Brian C: We need to say that non-standard copyright notices are subject to review.
[16:15:58] <joelmhalpern> Jorge: On the disclaim word in the third bullet (Authos MAY disclaim their own rights) there is room for better clarity. It may well be the case that the authors can disclaim their other rights elsewhere. (An IPR disclosure page, etc...)
[16:16:13] <joelmhalpern> smb: points out that we don't put patent disclosures in the RFCs themselves.
[16:16:56] <joelmhalpern> David Black: Would prefer donate or transfer rather than disclaim. Possibly coupled to the statement that authors retain other rights.
[16:17:49] <joelmhalpern> David Black: With regard to review of copyright notices, David would like to make sure that we get the necessary rights transfer even if there are really awkward words in the document; instead of review.
[16:18:22] <joelmhalpern> smb & Scott Bradner both really dislike trying to avoid the review, because history says that messy words are hard.
[16:18:49] --- klensin has joined
[16:19:24] <joelmhalpern> Bradner: May still need to allow multiple copyright notices for SDOs, but an alternative place for other notices / grants is a good idea.
[16:20:00] <joelmhalpern> Elwyn: There have been extra copyright notices on code excerpts
[16:22:15] <joelmhalpern> smb: given earlier agreement that code excerpts are modifiable, we can not accept a document with an additional copyright notice restricting the code modification or requiring additional behaviors.
[16:22:40] <joelmhalpern> smb: The point is that authors can not put on extra restrictions.
[16:23:40] <joelmhalpern> smb: There is no consensus in the meeting on moving boilerplate to URLs
[16:24:08] <joelmhalpern> smb: We do need to move promptly on changing the language for moving the IPR to the trust.
[16:24:24] <joelmhalpern> Bradner suggested (and room concurs) that we do a separate document just for that.
[16:24:53] <joelmhalpern> smb: rough consensus in room on code excerpt modifiability and non text excerpt modifiability.
[16:25:02] <joelmhalpern> Session complete.
[16:25:18] <gtw> thanks again for notes
[16:25:19] --- joelmhalpern has left
[16:25:50] --- klensin has left
[16:31:43] --- smb has left
[16:38:18] --- hartmans has left
[16:38:54] --- josoinin has left
[16:39:03] --- psavola has left
[16:47:37] --- Simon Josefsson has left
[16:48:57] --- smb has joined
[16:50:38] --- smb has left
[16:54:32] --- gtw has left
[17:21:20] --- becarpenter has left
[19:00:30] --- LOGGING STARTED