Network Working Group I. Maturana Internet-Draft I. Robredo Expires: December 17, 2004 in3activa June 18, 2004 Scope Modifiers in Intellectual Property Declarations draft-maturana-ipscope-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on intellectual property problems in the Internet. This document introduces and defines scope modifiers to be used in intellectual property declarations. These modifiers will abstract the intellectual property relationship of interoperable resources, available in the Internet. Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Intended audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Requirement notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Scope Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Categories of access operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Defining modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 PRIVATE modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 PROTECTED modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5 INTERNET modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6 PUBLIC modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7 Consistency in client modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Declaration Syntax Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1 Formal declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 Property line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3 Attribution line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 License line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Using modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1 Defaut modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2 Allowing interoperability of resources . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 1. Introduction This document defines four scope modifiers to be used in intellectual property declarations. These modifiers are used with resources in interoperable environments, such Internet. They help to abstract the intellectual property relationship of resources. Four modifiers are defined. The PUBLIC, PROTECTED and PRIVATE modifiers are transpositions of the class programming equivalents. A fourth modifier -- the INTERNET modifier-- works as a no-country restriction: it allows transformation of a private resource, but does not allow to reproduce it. The following declaration illustrates a typical usage of PUBLIC and PRIVATE modifiers in the I.P. declaration. The declaration states that OwnerB's private resource (the client resource) is a derivative version of OwnerA's public resource (the server resource). Private© 2004, OwnerB (http://www.client.com) & Public© 2002-2004, OwnerA (http://www.server.com) All rights reserved. 1.1 Intended audience No special knowledge is expected from readers. However, some concepts have a background and rely on a vocabulary that is more familiar to specialized readers: o The Objet Oriented languages, for Public, Private and Protected scope definitions; [CPPREF] o Intellectual property rights, for the Public versus Private understanding of ownership. [USC17-PD] 1.2 Definitions INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BASED OBJECT (IP OBJECT) is an instance of a work, as defined in Berne Convention (art.2) [BERNE]. OWNERSHIP covers the intellectual rights held by the owner on some IP Object. Ownership is defined in Berne Convention (art.5) [BERNE]. URI is the Universal Resource Identifier, as defined in [RFC2396]. RESOURCE is an IP object defined unambiguously by its URI and its related Ownership. SCOPE, as used in this document, defines the way a resource becomes available for operations such exhibition (access), execution, Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 reproduction or transformation. Modifiers may be used to alter the scope of the resource. A SERVER RESOURCE is a resource which has been copied, or transformed, to create a client resource. A CLIENT RESOURCE is a resource which refers to the corresponding server resource. A VERSION is a client resource, which is the result of a transformation. INTEROPERABILITY is defined in the IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary [IEEE 90]. INTERNET is an interoperable environment of RESOURCES. In this document, INTERNET is a scope modifier for IP objects. It works as a no-country restriction declaration. The INTERNET modifier allows the transformation, but does not allows to reproduce the resource. 1.3 Requirement notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 2. Scope Modifiers Scope modifiers are tokens used in I.P. declarations to modify the availability of resources for exhibition, execution, reproduction or transformation. Resource semantics are defined using two criteria: URI, and Ownership. Two URI may point to the same resource, or to duplicated resources. However, one URI cannot access two resources, as they belong to different owners. 2.1 Categories of access operations A resource is defined by URI and Ownership. These two criteria are illustrated by two questions: o Does the operation on resource generate a new URI? o Who is the owner of the client resource (if created)? Four operations are defined as follows: EXHIBIT The Owner creates the original URI used to access the IP object. Exhibition is done by the same holder holds the Ownership on the IP object: the author. EXECUTE There is no URI creation. A new instance of the IP object is performed. Any instance of the object is volatile and there is no client resource. The ownership of the resource remains unchanged. REPRODUCE A new, persistent URI is created, and a client resource is exhibited under this URI. There is no matter the underlying IP object is physically the same, or a simple duplicate. The ownership of both server and client resources belongs to the same owner. TRANSFORM A new, persistent URI is created, and a client version of the IP object is exhibited under this URI. The ownership of the version belongs to exhibitor of the version. The ownership of server and client resources is different, even if exhibitors are the same person. Some notes to understand correctly the two first operations: o An exhibited resource is a work protected under (Berne-2), whether published or not (Berne-3,1a). o Execution is a performance, as used in Berne-3,3, and it is not equivalent to publishing. The word EXECUTION is usually used with software, but this document Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 designs as EXECUTION any operation which does not imply URI creation, nor Ownership differentiation. For example, let us consider an author who exhibits an article in Internet and allows people to read its contents. This operation is a performance of the work equivalent to a public recitation. The difference is that recitation will be done directly by users (author does not actually recites the article). This difference is introduced by Internet interoperability properties but, technically, the performance is still the same: a recitation. Having regard to the nature of each resource, the word EXECUTION will apply for all these operations. 2.2 Defining modifiers The key concepts are the URI and the Ownership of the resource. In this document, the creation of a new URI is the formal criteria used to make difference between EXECUTION and REPRODUCTION. In other words, the difference between a simple EXECUTION (by the owner) and a true REPRODUCTION (by another exhibitor) raises when a new URI is defined for the copied resource. Conversely, Ownership introduces a semantic difference between EXHIBITION and TRANSFORMATION. EXHIBITION is provided by the owner of the resource itself. Instead, TRANSFORMATION is always done by another user, who is also the owner of this client version. In other words, the difference in Ownership determines the semantic difference between a simple exhibition (without URI creation) and a full transformation (always under a new URI) The following table compares URI creation and ownership: Operation |Client URI Ownership | Creation of resources -------------|-------------------------------- EXHIBIT | -- -- EXECUTE | -- -- REPRODUCE | Yes Same owner TRANSFORM | Yes Separate owners ---------------------------------------------- As a complementary observation, we notice that execution MUST precede any reproduction or a transform operations, while exhibition SHALL follow a transformation. Given the authorization to EXECUTE, the intellectual property Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 declaration will combine the REPRODUCTION and TRANSFORM possibilities to define four scope modifiers, as shown by the following table: If owner allows to... | Scope is EXECUTE TRANSFORM REPRODUCE | defined as: --------------------------------------------------------- Yes No No | PRIVATE Yes No Yes | PROTECTED Yes Yes No | INTERNET Yes Yes Yes | PUBLIC --------------------------------------------------------- 2.3 PRIVATE modifier PRIVATE is (in most countries) the default modifier. By default, the EXECUTION of a PRIVATE resource is restricted to the owner only. No reproduction, no transformation of the resource is allowed. 2.4 PROTECTED modifier PROTECTED scope mode is typically defined by a license. PROTECTED scope will allow (at least once) the REPRODUCTION of the resource. But the TRANSFORMATION of the resource is not allowed. The PROTECTED modifier may be used for collective projects managed by licenses who allows some modification on resources, but do not recognize the ownership of exhibitors on their own versions. 2.5 INTERNET modifier INTERNET scope allows transformation of private resources that are exhibited on interoperable environment, such Internet. However, REPRODUCTION is not allowed: creation of duplicate versions is prohibited. INTERNET works like a legal country excluder, but it excludes all countries. INTERNET modifier determines three specific behaviors: o Transformation and exhibition of versions are allowed. o All versions MUST follow-up the same INTERNET scope declaration. o All versions MUST refer to the same server resource. Internet modifier is a country restriction applied on a private resource, exhibited on Internet. This will become clear if we consider that transformation is a basic human right. Berne does not disallow transformation, however it prevents prejudice on private interests of the server resource Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 owner. While the no-country clause is in force, INTERNET modifier allows people to transform and exhibit the resource on Internet. However, the resource is still PRIVATE: all rights are reserved in all countries. 2.6 PUBLIC modifier PUBLIC scope may be seen as a non-restricted mode. It simply means that the owner does not prohibit reproduction or execution of the resource, or transformation and exhibition of new versions. o PUBLIC scope must not be confused with "public domain" as defined in some Countries. The owner of a PUBLIC resource keeps the full control on the resource. o PUBLIC scope must not be confused with PROTECTED scope, because TRANSFORMATION of resources is allowed without restriction. Exhibitors are also owners of the new versions. o PUBLIC scope is not a PRIVATE scope, because REPRODUCTION is explicitly allowed. It is possible to duplicate and even to sell copies of resource in any country. 2.7 Consistency in client modifiers This document does not define precedence rules for scope modifiers. However, consistency is required when applying modifiers. Given 2 resources, the scope modifier in the client declaration MUST be either the same or a more restrictive modifier than server. Server | Client resource may be: resource is | Private Protected Public Internet ---------------------------------------------------- PRIVATE | Yes -- -- -- PROTECTED | Yes Yes -- -- PUBLIC | Yes Yes Yes Yes ----------------------------------------------------- INTERNET | -- -- -- Yes ----------------------------------------------------- INTERNET modifier MUST follow-up because the "no-country scope" already excludes all countries. It works on behalf a PRIVATE modifier, which is in force in all excluded countries. Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 3. Declaration Syntax Description This chapter describes the RECOMMENDED syntax of declaration of IP objects, when using scope modifiers. 3.1 Formal declaration The formal declaration is a 2-lines or 3-lines declaration, described as follow: The 2-lines declaration is the basic declaration: [modifier](C) [date][owner] (Property line) [standard assertion or license link] (License line) The 3-lines declaration include an Attribution line, and is used for client resource declarations: [modifier](C) [date][owner] (Property line) & [modifier](C) [date][owner] (Attribution line) [standard assertion or license link] (License line) o Property line MUST appear. o Attribution MUST appear when the resource is a client resource. o License line is OPTIONAL. Here is an example of a client Internet declaration: Internet© 2004, ClientOwner (client-owner@clientsite.com) & Internet© 2004, ServerOwner (server-owner@serversite.com) All rights reserved in all countries. 3.2 Property line Property line MUST appear for all modifiers. The Property line is composed of: o a scope modifier: Private, Protected, Public, Internet o the (C) symbol o the date of first exhibition, oftentimes followed by the date of the last update o the name of the resource owner, sometimes followed by address or email. o any optional information, such the URI of the resource or email address. Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 Modifier Scope ------------------------------------- (none) PRIVATE [Private](C) PRIVATE Protected(C) PROTECTED Public(C) PUBLIC Internet(C) INTERNET ------------------------------------- The (C) symbol MUST follow the scope modifier. The (C) symbol MUST appears, even if not required by the Country Law. Two examples: Internet© 2004, OwnerName (owner-x@somesite.com) Public© 2002-2004, OwnerName (owner-x@somesite.com) 3.3 Attribution line Attribution MUST appear when the resource is a client resource. The Attribution line indicates that the resource is a duplicate or a version of a server resource. The use of an AMPERSAND sign ('&') in front of Attribution line is RECOMMENDED. The syntax of Attribution line is otherwise similar to the Property line itself. Internet© 2004, OwnerC (http://www.clientC.com) & Internet© 2002-2004, OwnerB (http://www.client_server.com) & Public© 2002, OwnerA (http://www.server.org) 3.4 License line License line is OPTIONAL, and may be used with any modifier. If used, license line SHALL override the semantic of the modifier. With 2-lines syntax, the license line appears after the Property line. With 3-lines syntax, it appears after the Attribution line. The License line usually rely on conventional expressions, used in the Owner's language or country. The following examples are provided in English and French. Private© 2004, Owner (http://www.clienttranslation.com) Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 All rights reserved Internet© 2004, NomDuClient (http://www.client.fr) & Internet© 2002-2004, NomDuServeur (http://www.serveur.ca) Reproduction interdite License-line is commonly used to refer to a detailed license. License line is well suited for PROTECTED or INTERNET modifiers, but may be included with all scope modifiers. Internet© 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) LGTv1r4: http://www.in3activa.org Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 4. Using modifiers 4.1 Defaut modifier For Countries that are members of Berne, the PRIVATE modifier is the default modifier, and it is optional. The following declaration: © 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) is equivalent to: Private© 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) If PRIVATE is not used as default, and License line is missing, then the PROTECTED, PUBLIC or INTERNET modifiers SHOULD APPEAR. Internet© 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) 4.2 Allowing interoperability of resources Scope modifiers are well suited to promote (or restrict) the interoperability of resources in environments such Internet. The syntax of IP declarations allows automated dissemination of INTERNET and PUBLIC objects, for example, by robots. It is RECOMMENDED to include licenses that will enlarge the I.P. scope of the resource modifier. Some software licenses provide PROTECTED resources which may be modified. Conversely, a license may allow an INTERNET resource to be copied (and sold) in the country of the licensee: for example, a book published with original and translation versions. Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 5. Security Considerations None. 6 References [BERNE] WIPO, "Berne Convention". [CPPREF] Ellis, M. and B. Stroustrup, "The annotated C++ Reference Manual", 1990. [IEEE 90] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY", 1990. [LGT] Maturana, I. and I. Robredo, "Translation general license", 1990-2004. [RFC2119] Harvard University, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Irvine, U. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", August 1998. [RFC2413] OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Center for Knowledge Management, University Library and Department of Computer Science and Reuters Limited, "Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery, RFC 2413", September 1998. [USC17-1] USA, "USC 17 - General". [USC17-PD] USA, "USC 17 - Public domain definition". Authors' Addresses I.Maturana in3activa Aptdo 15.117 Madrid, Spain E28019 EMail: imaturana@in3activa.org Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 I.Robredo in3activa Ziburu, France F64500 EMail: irobredo@in3activa.org Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Internet(C) June 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Maturana & Robredo Expires December 17, 2004 [Page 15] Network Working Group I. Maturana Internet-Draft I. Robredo Expires: January 10, 2005 in3activa July 12, 2004 Scope Modifiers in Intellectual Property Declarations draft-maturana-ipscope-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on intellectual property problems in the Internet. This document introduces and defines scope modifiers to be used in intellectual property declarations. These modifiers will abstract the intellectual property relationship of interoperable resources, available in the Internet. Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Intended audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Requirement notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Scope Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Categories of access operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Defining modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 PRIVATE modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 PROTECTED modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5 INTERNET modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6 PUBLIC modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7 Consistency in client modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Declaration Syntax Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1 Formal declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 Property line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3 Attribution line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 License line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Using modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1 Defaut modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2 Allowing interoperability of resources . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 1. Introduction This document defines four scope modifiers to be used in intellectual property declarations. These modifiers are used with resources in interoperable environments, such Internet. They help to abstract the intellectual property relationship of resources. Four modifiers are defined. The PUBLIC, PROTECTED and PRIVATE modifiers are transpositions of the class programming equivalents. A fourth modifier -- the INTERNET modifier-- works as a no-country restriction: it allows transformation of a private resource, but does not allow to reproduce it. The following declaration illustrates a typical usage of PUBLIC and PRIVATE modifiers in the I.P. declaration. The declaration states that OwnerB's private resource (the client resource) is a derivative version of OwnerA's public resource (the server resource). Private© 2004, OwnerB (http://www.client.com) & Public© 2002-2004, OwnerA (http://www.server.com) All rights reserved. 1.1 Intended audience No special knowledge is expected from readers. However, some concepts have a background and rely on a vocabulary that is more familiar to specialized readers: o The Objet Oriented languages, for Public, Private and Protected scope definitions; [CPPREF] o Intellectual property rights, for the Public versus Private understanding of ownership. [USC17-PD] 1.2 Definitions INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BASED OBJECT (IP OBJECT) is an instance of a work, as defined in Berne Convention (art.2) [BERNE]. OWNERSHIP covers the intellectual rights held by the owner on some IP Object. Ownership is defined in Berne Convention (art.5) [BERNE]. URI is the Universal Resource Identifier, as defined in [RFC2396]. RESOURCE is an IP object defined unambiguously by its URI and its related Ownership. SCOPE, as used in this document, defines the way a resource becomes available for operations such exhibition (access), execution, Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 reproduction or transformation. Modifiers may be used to alter the scope of the resource. A SERVER RESOURCE is a resource which has been copied, or transformed, to create a client resource. A CLIENT RESOURCE is a resource which refers to the corresponding server resource. A VERSION is a client resource, which is the result of a transformation. INTEROPERABILITY is defined in the IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary [IEEE 90]. INTERNET is an interoperable environment of RESOURCES. In this document, INTERNET is a scope modifier for IP objects. It works as a no-country restriction declaration. The INTERNET modifier allows the transformation, but does not allows to reproduce the resource. 1.3 Requirement notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 2. Scope Modifiers Scope modifiers are tokens used in I.P. declarations to modify the availability of resources for exhibition, execution, reproduction or transformation. Resource semantics are defined using two criteria: URI, and Ownership. Two URI may point to the same resource, or to duplicated resources. However, one URI cannot access two resources, as they belong to different owners. 2.1 Categories of access operations A resource is defined by URI and Ownership. These two criteria are illustrated by two questions: o Does the operation on resource generate a new URI? o Who is the owner of the client resource (if created)? Four operations are defined as follows: EXHIBIT The Owner creates the original URI used to access the IP object. Exhibition is done by the same holder holds the Ownership on the IP object: the author. EXECUTE There is no URI creation. A new instance of the IP object is performed. Any instance of the object is volatile and there is no client resource. The ownership of the resource remains unchanged. REPRODUCE A new, persistent URI is created, and a client resource is exhibited under this URI. There is no matter the underlying IP object is physically the same, or a simple duplicate. The ownership of both server and client resources belongs to the same owner. TRANSFORM A new, persistent URI is created, and a client version of the IP object is exhibited under this URI. The ownership of the version belongs to exhibitor of the version. The ownership of server and client resources is different, even if exhibitors are the same person. Some notes to understand correctly the two first operations: o An exhibited resource is a work protected under (Berne-2), whether published or not (Berne-3,1a). o Execution is a performance, as used in Berne-3,3, and it is not equivalent to publishing. The word EXECUTION is usually used with software, but this document Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 designs as EXECUTION any operation which does not imply URI creation, nor Ownership differentiation. For example, let us consider an author who exhibits an article in Internet and allows people to read its contents. This operation is a performance of the work equivalent to a public recitation. The difference is that recitation will be done directly by users (author does not actually recites the article). This difference is introduced by Internet interoperability properties but, technically, the performance is still the same: a recitation. Having regard to the nature of each resource, the word EXECUTION will apply for all these operations. 2.2 Defining modifiers The key concepts are the URI and the Ownership of the resource. In this document, the creation of a new URI is the formal criteria used to make difference between EXECUTION and REPRODUCTION. In other words, the difference between a simple EXECUTION (by the owner) and a true REPRODUCTION (by another exhibitor) raises when a new URI is defined for the copied resource. Conversely, Ownership introduces a semantic difference between EXHIBITION and TRANSFORMATION. EXHIBITION is provided by the owner of the resource itself. Instead, TRANSFORMATION is always done by another user, who is also the owner of this client version. In other words, the difference in Ownership determines the semantic difference between a simple exhibition (without URI creation) and a full transformation (always under a new URI) The following table compares URI creation and ownership: Operation |Client URI Ownership | Creation of resources -------------|-------------------------------- EXHIBIT | -- -- EXECUTE | -- -- REPRODUCE | Yes Same owner TRANSFORM | Yes Separate owners ---------------------------------------------- As a complementary observation, we notice that execution MUST precede any reproduction or a transform operations, while exhibition SHALL follow a transformation. Given the authorization to EXECUTE, the intellectual property Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 declaration will combine the REPRODUCTION and TRANSFORM possibilities to define four scope modifiers, as shown by the following table: If owner allows to... | Scope is EXECUTE TRANSFORM REPRODUCE | defined as: --------------------------------------------------------- Yes No No | PRIVATE Yes No Yes | PROTECTED Yes Yes No | INTERNET Yes Yes Yes | PUBLIC --------------------------------------------------------- 2.3 PRIVATE modifier PRIVATE is (in most countries) the default modifier. By default, the EXECUTION of a PRIVATE resource is restricted to the owner only. No reproduction, no transformation of the resource is allowed. 2.4 PROTECTED modifier PROTECTED scope mode is typically defined by a license. PROTECTED scope will allow (at least once) the REPRODUCTION of the resource. But the TRANSFORMATION of the resource is not allowed. The PROTECTED modifier may be used for collective projects managed by licenses who allows some modification on resources, but do not recognize the ownership of exhibitors on their own versions. 2.5 INTERNET modifier INTERNET scope allows transformation of private resources that are exhibited on interoperable environment, such Internet. However, REPRODUCTION is not allowed: creation of duplicate versions is prohibited. INTERNET works like a legal country excluder, but it excludes all countries. INTERNET modifier determines three specific behaviors: o Transformation and exhibition of versions are allowed. o All versions MUST follow-up the same INTERNET scope declaration. o All versions MUST refer to the same server resource. Internet modifier is a country restriction applied on a private resource, exhibited on Internet. This will become clear if we consider that transformation is a basic human right. Berne does not disallow transformation, however it prevents prejudice on private interests of the server resource Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 owner. While the no-country clause is in force, INTERNET modifier allows people to transform and exhibit the resource on Internet. However, the resource is still PRIVATE: all rights are reserved in all countries. 2.6 PUBLIC modifier PUBLIC scope may be seen as a non-restricted mode. It simply means that the owner does not prohibit reproduction or execution of the resource, or transformation and exhibition of new versions. o PUBLIC scope must not be confused with "public domain" as defined in some Countries. The owner of a PUBLIC resource keeps the full control on the resource. o PUBLIC scope must not be confused with PROTECTED scope, because TRANSFORMATION of resources is allowed without restriction. Exhibitors are also owners of the new versions. o PUBLIC scope is not a PRIVATE scope, because REPRODUCTION is explicitly allowed. It is possible to duplicate and even to sell copies of resource in any country. 2.7 Consistency in client modifiers This document does not define precedence rules for scope modifiers. However, consistency is required when applying modifiers. Given 2 resources, the scope modifier in the client declaration MUST be either the same or a more restrictive modifier than server. Server | Client resource may be: resource is | Private Protected Public Internet ---------------------------------------------------- PRIVATE | Yes -- -- -- PROTECTED | Yes Yes -- -- PUBLIC | Yes Yes Yes Yes ----------------------------------------------------- INTERNET | -- -- -- Yes ----------------------------------------------------- INTERNET modifier MUST follow-up because the "no-country scope" already excludes all countries. It works on behalf a PRIVATE modifier, which is in force in all excluded countries. Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 3. Declaration Syntax Description This chapter describes the RECOMMENDED syntax of declaration of IP objects, when using scope modifiers. 3.1 Formal declaration The formal declaration is a 2-lines or 3-lines declaration, described as follow: The 2-lines declaration is the basic declaration: [modifier](C) [date][owner] (Property line) [standard assertion or license link] (License line) The 3-lines declaration include an Attribution line, and is used for client resource declarations: [modifier](C) [date][owner] (Property line) & [modifier](C) [date][owner] (Attribution line) [standard assertion or license link] (License line) o Property line MUST appear. o Attribution MUST appear when the resource is a client resource. o License line is OPTIONAL. Here is an example of a client Internet declaration: Internet© 2004, ClientOwner (client-owner@clientsite.com) & Internet© 2004, ServerOwner (server-owner@serversite.com) All rights reserved in all countries. 3.2 Property line Property line MUST appear for all modifiers. The Property line is composed of: o a scope modifier: Private, Protected, Public, Internet o the (C) symbol o the date of first exhibition, oftentimes followed by the date of the last update o the name of the resource owner, sometimes followed by address or email. o any optional information, such the URI of the resource or email address. Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 Modifier Scope ------------------------------------- (none) PRIVATE [Private](C) PRIVATE Protected(C) PROTECTED Public(C) PUBLIC Internet(C) INTERNET ------------------------------------- The (C) symbol MUST follow the scope modifier. The (C) symbol MUST appears, even if not required by the Country Law. Two examples: Internet© 2004, OwnerName (owner-x@somesite.com) Public© 2002-2004, OwnerName (owner-x@somesite.com) 3.3 Attribution line Attribution MUST appear when the resource is a client resource. The Attribution line indicates that the resource is a duplicate or a version of a server resource. The use of an AMPERSAND sign ('&') in front of Attribution line is RECOMMENDED. The syntax of Attribution line is otherwise similar to the Property line itself. Internet© 2004, OwnerC (http://www.clientC.com) & Internet© 2002-2004, OwnerB (http://www.client_server.com) & Public© 2002, OwnerA (http://www.server.org) 3.4 License line License line is OPTIONAL, and may be used with any modifier. If used, license line SHALL override the semantic of the modifier. With 2-lines syntax, the license line appears after the Property line. With 3-lines syntax, it appears after the Attribution line. The License line usually rely on conventional expressions, used in the Owner's language or country. The following examples are provided in English and French. Private© 2004, Owner (http://www.clienttranslation.com) Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 All rights reserved Internet© 2004, NomDuClient (http://www.client.fr) & Internet© 2002-2004, NomDuServeur (http://www.serveur.ca) Reproduction interdite License-line is commonly used to refer to a detailed license. License line is well suited for PROTECTED or INTERNET modifiers, but may be included with all scope modifiers. Internet© 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) LGTv1r4: http://www.in3activa.org Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 4. Using modifiers 4.1 Defaut modifier For Countries that are members of Berne, the PRIVATE modifier is the default modifier, and it is optional. The following declaration: © 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) is equivalent to: Private© 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) If PRIVATE is not used as default, and License line is missing, then the PROTECTED, PUBLIC or INTERNET modifiers SHOULD APPEAR. Internet© 2004, OwnerX (owner-x@somesite.com) 4.2 Allowing interoperability of resources Scope modifiers are well suited to promote (or restrict) the interoperability of resources in environments such Internet. The syntax of IP declarations allows automated dissemination of INTERNET and PUBLIC objects, for example, by robots. It is RECOMMENDED to include licenses that will enlarge the I.P. scope of the resource modifier. Some software licenses provide PROTECTED resources which may be modified. Conversely, a license may allow an INTERNET resource to be copied (and sold) in the country of the licensee: for example, a book published with original and translation versions. Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 5. Security Considerations None. 6 References [BERNE] WIPO, "Berne Convention". [CPPREF] Ellis, M. and B. Stroustrup, "The annotated C++ Reference Manual", 1990. [IEEE 90] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY", 1990. [LGT] Maturana, I. and I. Robredo, "Translation general license", 1990-2004. [RFC2119] Harvard University, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Irvine, U. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", August 1998. [RFC2413] OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Center for Knowledge Management, University Library and Department of Computer Science and Reuters Limited, "Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery, RFC 2413", September 1998. [USC17-1] USA, "USC 17 - General". [USC17-PD] USA, "USC 17 - Public domain definition". Authors' Addresses I.Maturana in3activa Aptdo 15.117 Madrid, Spain E28019 EMail: imaturana@in3activa.org Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 I.Robredo in3activa Ziburu, France F64500 EMail: irobredo@in3activa.org Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Internet(C) July 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Maturana & Robredo Expires January 10, 2005 [Page 15]