[ntpwg] NTPStamp - A new addition to the kit...
tglassey at earthlink.net
Sun Nov 29 17:49:53 UTC 2009
Danny Mayer wrote:
> You seem to be determined to make yourself look foolish. The reference
> implementation is not owned by IETF and even the protocol is not owned
> by the IETF. Quoting directly from RFC2026 (BCP9) Section 10.3.1 Item 1:
No Danny just point out how little you know about law.
> "However, to the extent that the submission is or may
> be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he
> represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in
> the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,
> royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the
> IETF under any copyrights in the contribution.
Uh Danny ask any of the commercial entities here or the University IP
Acquisition houses whether they would rely on this assignment??? If you
get a YES then let me ask - who is the company and are they profitable
because no one in their right mind would accept IP under these terms.
Let me also ask how many really bad contracts sloppy technical people
have put in place exist? - let me tell you the number is HUGE.
> This license
> includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the
> contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are
> based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
> license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
> license of the original contribution."
> This does *NOT* say that IETF owns the copyright and in fact is says the
Yes it does now but it didn't back when NTP was originally submitted...
and that's the point.
> This is laid out in more detail and/or clarification in
> RFC3978 (BCP78) which basically says the same thing. None of the
> documents (including BCP79 - RFC3979) make any ownership claim by the
> IETF over either the protocol or the implementation.
Sure they do - they make direct publication claims which impact patent
filing by the rightful IP owners...
> The IETF only gets
> a perpetual license and copyright is retained by the submitter/author or
> organization claiming copyright.
yeah this is one of the other misnomers - its not a perpetual its a
"Shared Exclusive Right" to ... and that is the key issue here.
Contracts which fabricate relationships which cannot exist in law are
void so I suggest that you get the lawyers to really look over that
contract and the IETF operations documents because its way too late to
change anything now.
>> the IETF has changed these rules through BCP78 and 79 and the later docs
>> but the earlier versions of the NTP package are totally tied to those
>> previous licenses. Something the IETF has not thought too much about but
>> those licenses cannot be changed ever because of how they were written.
>> So the code used to verify the IETF's Standard's Operation - something
>> that NTP *** MUST *** have to be a standard belongs to the IETF under
>> the earlier rules.
> No. See BCP 9. BCP 78 and BCP 79 both update BCP 9 and there is nothing
> to prevent IETF from updating or obsoleting these documents.
Yes but BCP78/79 process is a revision to a contract which is
unenforceable after being published on the earlier licensing agreements
- check with any attorney you want who specializes in IP Licensing....
But it gets even funnier - when you read the HEADER of the filing
itself. The HEADER says
Request for Comments: 3979
BCP: 79 March 2005 Obsoletes: 3668
Updates: 2028, 2026 Category: Best Current Practice
So we read that this DOCUMENT UPDATES RFC2026 meaning that RFC2026 is
still in effect. Also then it is two fold (1) up to the RELYING PARTY as
to what they 'Understood" at the time they entered into this agreement.
But you may also want to look at sections 4a and 4.1 on that document
since there is collateral legal impact of the language of those
including that ANY WG WHO BLOCKS publication of anyone's submission
would be in breach of their IETF Responsibilities as a List Operator...
> BCP 9 does not require *any* implementation to exist before becoming a
> Proposed Standard.
I suggest you ask ISC lawyers about the derivative changes to the IETF's
process agreements and what the evolution of them means.
You seem to have the idea that what today's licensing documents say is
the way it is - except that those previous filings under those previous
rules makes NTP forever impossible to control - and YES if Dave wants me
to point out how stupid and incompetent the legal counsel here has been
because they DIDN'T READ the earlier IETF documents.
Your screwup here Danny is that the IETF "Contract for Performance of
its Standards Process Practices" is split across a number of documents
and has been for a while but the terms of the participation of the
process is set at its original filing and since there is NOTHING in any
BCP which specifies the IETF has the right to change those terms and
conditions at any time, any effort originally filed under those terms is
set for life. Sorry...
So Danny the problem is that the contract between the NTP.ORG entity or
Dave Mills started back when the IETF published IP 'for any and all
uses' meaning that code could be built from it. The original intent was
to make it globally impossible to protect IP and if people would like to
see photos of when that meeting took place I can arrange it. You will
see some of the most influential faces in Internet History there and
they all agreed at the time... And unless there is specific changes to
that agreement between Dave Mills and the IETF and the IETF can formally
notify all of the relying parties of those changes - the changes are
most likely unenforceable in my opinion.
> See Section 4.1.1 of BCP 9. Since NTPv4 was submitted
> on the standards track, it would initially become a proposed standard.
Yes but the submission of the proposed standard took place when the
original NTP filing was first done with the IETF years ago not when the
IETF acted on it. The proposed NTP Standard Number has been hanging in
limbo for a decade that I know of... meaning that that it is controlled
by the standard process in place at the time it was submitted originally
- the status of the documents inside the IETF is flawed such that ANYONE
filing anything with them can demand that all filings take place under
the terms and conditions in place at the time of the original filing
because that process "document set" forms a full contract and set
specific expectations. If you don't believe that check into legal
precedents where the contracts evolve and change requirements on the fly
and how enforceable they are without specific agreement by the
SPONSORING PARTY under the US Copyrights Work for Hire Doctrine.
> Draft Standard wants at least two independent implementations of the
> protocol to move the protocol to draft standard status. See Section
> 4.1.2. Note that none of this requires that IETF owns either the
> protocol or the implementations and in fact IETF does not make such a
> claim. See above.
Not now but the code to support the filing WAS NECESSARY and the instant
that SOURCE CODE was filed to document the reference port it became the
property of the IETF... poof all done - and not arguable either. Sorry -
just because todays document's say the IETF may only own the publication
rights they didn't used to and since all of the contributed engineering
(the Vetting) done on NTP in the NTPWG and other places, this makes that
code also the property of the IETF.
But hey... let me ask a totally unrelated question - I heard that the
old ISC was nailed for an antitrust matter in something called the MAPS
Blacklisting Fiasco- is this true?
I bring this up because of a Post Dean Anderson made on one of the other
IETF Lists. Again - is this true or not?
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2534 - Release Date: 11/29/09 07:49:00
More information about the ntpwg