Re: [tao-discuss] Misleading text on copyright

On 14-09-2022 16:56, Joel Halpern wrote:
> Thanks Niels.  I had no intent to imply or suggest any deliberate error on anyone's part.  I assumed (and still understand) that it was an honest misunderstanding of the often confusing rules.
> 
> The proposed fix looks good.  Please send it to the trust for an extra check.

Done!

Best,

Niels
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Joel
> 
> On 9/14/2022 7:04 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> On 14-09-2022 02:42, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>> The text on copyright in section 6.1 is misleading in two ways, one more important than the other. While I understand we do not want to get the Tao into the details of copyright law, as a trustee I am concerned about being too misleading.
>>>
>>
>> From Merriam-Webster:
>>
>> Def. Misleading
>> : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit
>>
>> I don't think there is any deliberate deceit here, but you might have not meant that.
>>
>>> The problems are in the fourth paragraph.
>>>
>>> The first problem is that the grant to the trust occurs when the individual draft is submitted.  (It also occurs when any revision is made,  Or when the adopted version is adopted.)  The current text says that the grant occurs for the first time when the draft is adopted.
>>>
>>> The second issue is subtle and hard to get right here.  What happens is that the author retains their copyright in the document.  And grants the IETF (and thus the Trust) a copyright. The copyright is not transfererd but granted.  The wording in the fourth paragraph is confusing in this regard.
>>>
>>> To solve both these problems, I suggest that after the first paragraph, we add a new second paragraph:
>>>
>>> Note that as part of submitting an Internet Draft according to the rules, you grant the IETF certain rights.  These rights give the IETF the ability to reliably build upon the work you have brought forward. These rights are held by the IETF Trust.  Which is all you need to know about the Trust.
>>
>> I think this text is great, but maybe we can omit that last sentence? It sounds a bit like: don't think about a pink elephant.
>>
>>>
>>> I would then modify the fourth paragraph to make clear that the point of the paragraph is that once a WG adopts a document, the WG has change control.  And that one should only embark on this process if one is prepared to grant that change control.  No need to talk there about the Trust.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that the new paragraph be emailed to the trust to make sure it is close enough we can live with it, as I am not here speaking for the Trust.
>>
>> Does this look good to you: https://github.com/ietf/tao/pull/54 ?
>>
>> If so, am happy to also email it to the trust.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tao-discuss mailing list
>>> tao-discuss@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
>>

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina

Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)

W: https://nielstenoever.net
E: mail@nielstenoever.net
T: @nielstenoever
P/S/WA: +31629051853
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Read my latest article on understanding power in standardization in the Journal of Standardisation here: https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/jos/article/view/6205/5361