Comments to WG meeting

Simon,

> I don't understand the questions in the
"Proposed Excerpt Policy"
> slide.  If code excerpts are permitted and MUST be
modifiable -- which
> BCP78 apparently already intend to say if I understand
Jorge correctly
> -- that is sufficient to be included in GPLed code.  No
additional
> rights are needed from the author, if I understand the
slide
> correctly.

IMHO, that ought to be the case.  On reflection, I disagree
with what
I believe was asserted in the meeting - namely that the RFC
document
author should control whether code from an RFC can be placed
under GPL.
That seems wrong - IETF ought not to aid/abet that sort of
behavior
any more than it ought to aid/abet prohibitions on
commercial use of
code in an RFC.  Code published in an RFC should be freely
usable by
anyone who wants to implement the protocol in the RFC,
period - I
base this assertion on the assumption that the code in the
RFC is
essential to implementing the protocol in the RFC.

There is a related issue, in that if code goes under a
license such as
the GPL and gets modified, it may not be possible to put the
modifications
back into the IETF to revise the RFC.  To deal with this, I
suggest
instructing the IETF Trust that:
- RFC code excerpts should be free software (e.g., BSD
license) that
	can be used for any purpose.
- Modifications to RFC code excerpts should continue to be
free 
	software to the extent legally possible.
For open source, I can see how to achieve that - the IETF
free software
license for RFC code excerpts would say that if the source
code containing
the modified RFC excerpt is publicly redistributed, then the
IETF free
software license applies to the modified RFC code excerpt
(and only to
that excerpt, as the "derived work") in the
redistributed code.  I don't
know what to do for commercial closed source.

> I disagree with "Text excerpts MUST NOT be
modified".  We have plenty
> of running code in this area -- the getaddrinfo man
page in Solaris
> and excerpts from RFCs in free source code -- which to
me suggest that
> we should permit modifications of text excerpts. 
People have been
> putting excerpts from RFCs in modifiable texts for
years, and doing so
> appear to further the goals of the IETF.  I don't see
how the IETF's
> goals are furthered by forbidding this commonly used
practice.  There
> are valid concerns with permitting modifications, but I
think a better
> balance could be found here.
> 
> I agree with David Blacka (?), and would like to thank
him for
> mentioning this, that we should analyze the
consequences for the
> examples I gave in Vancouver when there is a new
policy.  This also
> relates to Klensin's (?) request that we review the
policy in a
> careful paranoid way instead of assuming that whatever
we come up with
> is clear and correct.

That was me.  While I'm not sure I agree with all of your
examples,
I strongly believe that the consequences for those examples
need to
be understood by the WG as part of making the decision.  I
need to
go back and look at them in my "copious spare
time" ...

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_davidemc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

   From: Black_Davidemc.com
   Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:16:15 -0400

   [...]

   IMHO, that ought to be the case.  On reflection, I
disagree with
   what I believe was asserted in the meeting - namely that
the RFC
   document author should control whether code from an RFC
can be
   placed under GPL. That seems wrong - IETF ought not to
aid/abet
   that sort of behavior any more than it ought to aid/abet
   prohibitions on commercial use of code in an RFC.  Code
published
   in an RFC should be freely usable by anyone who wants to
implement
   the protocol in the RFC, period - I base this assertion
on the
   assumption that the code in the RFC is essential to
implementing
   the protocol in the RFC.

I'll second this: it frees the IETF from responsibility for
future
use of code examples found in RFCs, and allows authors to
retain
their rights.  If an author of some code in an RFC wants to
extend
usage rights for "any and all" purposes (e.g.,
placing code in the
public domain) then s/he is free to do so via a statement in
the
RFC.  I note that future uses of such code *could* mean
inclusion in a
GPL'ed software package, but that's not going to encumber
material
published by the IETF with the author's release.

   There is a related issue, in that if code goes under a
license such
   as the GPL and gets modified, it may not be possible to
put the
   modifications back into the IETF to revise the RFC.  To
deal with
   this, I suggest instructing the IETF Trust that:
   - RFC code excerpts should be free software (e.g., BSD
license) that
	   can be used for any purpose.
   - Modifications to RFC code excerpts should continue to
be free 
	   software to the extent legally possible.
   For open source, I can see how to achieve that - the IETF
free
   software license for RFC code excerpts would say that if
the source
   code containing the modified RFC excerpt is publicly
redistributed,
   then the IETF free software license applies to the
modified RFC
   code excerpt (and only to that excerpt, as the
"derived work") in
   the redistributed code.  I don't know what to do for
commercial
   closed source.

I think releasing code "for implementation only"
as the default
IETF condition should address the potential problems of
GPL'ed code.
Again, if a software author also wants to release the code
under a
GPL, I believe s/he would be free to do so separately
without
entangling the IETF, provided the GPL for the code is not
embedded in
the RFC.

A precondition for allowing code examples to appear in an
RFC *must*
be that the code is not encumbered in such a way that the
IETF cannot
publish it with at least a "for implementation
only" kind of license.
An author who proposes to publish a RFC containing
proprietary or
encumbered code (including encumbrance via a GPL) should not
be
permitted to do so.

The trick is to ensure that the IETF cannot be held liable
for
publishing encumbered code that an author knowingly lied
about or
unknowingly obtained from a third party who has legitimate
restrictive
rights.  This calls for wome form of due diligence.  One
possible way
around the problem might be to create a rule similar to the
one used
by the WWW Consortium, where disclosure of an encumbrance is
mandated
if "personally known" to someone directly
involved in the standards
making process.  The primary effect of this kind of rule is
to place
responsibility for due diligence in the hands of working
group
participants and their peers without mandating any expensive
corporate
IPR portfolio searches.

   [...]

--Bede

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Black_Davidemc.com wrote:
> There is a related issue, in that if code goes under a
license such as
> the GPL and gets modified, it may not be possible to
put the modifications
> back into the IETF to revise the RFC.  To deal with
this, I suggest
> instructing the IETF Trust that:
> - RFC code excerpts should be free software (e.g., BSD
license) that
> 	can be used for any purpose.
> - Modifications to RFC code excerpts should continue to
be free 
> 	software to the extent legally possible.
> For open source, I can see how to achieve that - the
IETF free
> software license for RFC code excerpts would say that
if the source
> code containing the modified RFC excerpt is publicly
redistributed,
> then the IETF free software license applies to the
modified RFC code
> excerpt (and only to that excerpt, as the
"derived work") in the
> redistributed code.

This has the unfortunate side effect of likely making it GPL
(and
other copyleft license) incompatible unless it was very
carefully
worded,[1] since it would appear to form some sort of a
copyleft.

Would it be enough if outbound was MIT/Expat licensed with a
strong
suggestion to contribute changes back to the standards
process? This
would enable people to use the code in any implementation,
and also
remind everyone that they should participate in the
standards process.

> I strongly believe that the consequences for those
examples need to
> be understood by the WG as part of making the decision.
I need to go
> back and look at them in my "copious spare
time" ...

I agree. While it's quite likely that the process will
result in
something that I'm not completely happy with,[2] it would
be really
sad if a decision was reached without understanding exactly
the
results of that decision.


Don Armstrong

1: I really suggest avoiding getting into a situtation where
IETF is
writing software licenses to the greatest extent possible...
as those
who have analyzed many licenses know, it's very, very
difficult to get
right.

2: Indeed, I'd be surprised if anyone here is completely
happy with
whatever this group decides.
-- 
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
 -- hugh macleod http://www.gapin
gvoid.com/batch3.htm

http://www.donarmstrong.c
om              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Black_Davidemc.com writes:

> Simon,
>
>> I don't understand the questions in the
"Proposed Excerpt Policy"
>> slide.  If code excerpts are permitted and MUST be
modifiable -- which
>> BCP78 apparently already intend to say if I
understand Jorge correctly
>> -- that is sufficient to be included in GPLed code.
 No additional
>> rights are needed from the author, if I understand
the slide
>> correctly.
>
> IMHO, that ought to be the case.

Agreed.

> On reflection, I disagree with what I believe was
asserted in the
> meeting - namely that the RFC document author should
control whether
> code from an RFC can be placed under GPL.

Yes, that seems incompatible with permitting modifications
of code
portion, which Jorge said already is permitted by RFC 3978.

> That seems wrong - IETF ought not to aid/abet that sort
of behavior
> any more than it ought to aid/abet prohibitions on
commercial use of
> code in an RFC. Code published in an RFC should be
freely usable by
> anyone who wants to implement the protocol in the RFC,
period - I
> base this assertion on the assumption that the code in
the RFC is
> essential to implementing the protocol in the RFC.

Right.

> There is a related issue, in that if code goes under a
license such as
> the GPL and gets modified, it may not be possible to
put the modifications
> back into the IETF to revise the RFC.

The same holds if code goes into a closed source
implementation, such
as Windows or Sun.  I don't think that is a problem.  That
usage of
RFCs should be OK, and would reflect reality that the
Internet is run
by both closed source and free software.  Having everyone be
able to
take portions of RFCs and incorporate them into their
products
furthers the goals of the IETF.

> To deal with this, I suggest
> instructing the IETF Trust that:
> - RFC code excerpts should be free software (e.g., BSD
license) that
> 	can be used for any purpose.
> - Modifications to RFC code excerpts should continue to
be free 
> 	software to the extent legally possible.
> For open source, I can see how to achieve that - the
IETF free software
> license for RFC code excerpts would say that if the
source code containing
> the modified RFC excerpt is publicly redistributed,
then the IETF free
> software license applies to the modified RFC code
excerpt (and only to
> that excerpt, as the "derived work") in the
redistributed code.  I don't
> know what to do for commercial closed source.

It is difficult to judge this without knowing what the
"IETF free
software license" would say.

>> I disagree with "Text excerpts MUST NOT be
modified".  We have plenty
>> of running code in this area -- the getaddrinfo man
page in Solaris
>> and excerpts from RFCs in free source code -- which
to me suggest that
>> we should permit modifications of text excerpts. 
People have been
>> putting excerpts from RFCs in modifiable texts for
years, and doing so
>> appear to further the goals of the IETF.  I don't
see how the IETF's
>> goals are furthered by forbidding this commonly
used practice.  There
>> are valid concerns with permitting modifications,
but I think a better
>> balance could be found here.
>> 
>> I agree with David Blacka (?), and would like to
thank him for
>> mentioning this, that we should analyze the
consequences for the
>> examples I gave in Vancouver when there is a new
policy.  This also
>> relates to Klensin's (?) request that we review
the policy in a
>> careful paranoid way instead of assuming that
whatever we come up with
>> is clear and correct.
>
> That was me.  While I'm not sure I agree with all of
your examples,
> I strongly believe that the consequences for those
examples need to
> be understood by the WG as part of making the decision.
 I need to
> go back and look at them in my "copious spare
time" ...

Yes -- explaining for each example what the consequence
would be seem
to be a good sanity test of new rules.  Thanks for bringing
it up.

And I agree, you don't have to agree that a particular
example should
be permitted, as long as you agree that the actual practical
result
for that example matches what you believe the WG intends to
do.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

"Bede B. McCall" <bedemitre.org> writes:

>    There is a related issue, in that if code goes under
a license such
>    as the GPL and gets modified, it may not be possible
to put the
>    modifications back into the IETF to revise the RFC. 
To deal with
>    this, I suggest instructing the IETF Trust that:
>    - RFC code excerpts should be free software (e.g.,
BSD license) that
> 	   can be used for any purpose.
>    - Modifications to RFC code excerpts should continue
to be free 
> 	   software to the extent legally possible.
>    For open source, I can see how to achieve that - the
IETF free
>    software license for RFC code excerpts would say
that if the source
>    code containing the modified RFC excerpt is publicly
redistributed,
>    then the IETF free software license applies to the
modified RFC
>    code excerpt (and only to that excerpt, as the
"derived work") in
>    the redistributed code.  I don't know what to do
for commercial
>    closed source.
>
> I think releasing code "for implementation
only" as the default
> IETF condition should address the potential problems of
GPL'ed code.

We've already talked about a limited-use license, but, as
far as I can
see, such a license cannot be GPL compatible.  I think that
disqualifies that approach.

> A precondition for allowing code examples to appear in
an RFC *must*
> be that the code is not encumbered in such a way that
the IETF cannot
> publish it with at least a "for implementation
only" kind of license.

Note that we already have several examples of RFCs with
problematic
licenses, see:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
josefsson-ipr-notices-00.txt

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Don Armstrong <dondonarmstrong.com> writes:

> Would it be enough if outbound was MIT/Expat licensed
with a strong
> suggestion to contribute changes back to the standards
process? This
> would enable people to use the code in any
implementation, and also
> remind everyone that they should participate in the
standards process.

This is a very good idea.

I believe we should ignore the code vs text rathole, which
people
outside of the IETF have spent many cycles on without
results, and
write a simple, permissive, license that covers entire RFC
documents.

The license that I proposed to use in
draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-04.txt is reproduced below.
 Many
people contributed to this design.  I believe it solves all
the
concerns raised with permitting modifications of RFC (i.e.,
fake
RFCs).

/Simon

       c.  The Contributor grants third parties the
irrevocable
           right to copy, use and distribute the
Contribution, with
           or without modification, in any medium, without
royalty,
           provided that, unless separate permission is
granted,
           redistributed modified works:

                (a) do not contain misleading author,
version, name
                    of work, or endorsement information, and

                (b) do not claim endorsement of the modified
work by
                    the Contributor, or any organization the
                    Contributor belongs to, the Internet
Engineering
                    Task Force (IETF), Internet Research
Task Force
                    (IRTF), Internet Engineering Steering
Group
                    (IESG), Internet Architecture Board
(IAB),
                    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA),
                    Internet Society (ISOC), Request For
Comments
                    (RFC) Editor, or any combination or
variation of
                    such terms (including without limitation
the
                    IETF "4 diamonds" logo), or
any terms that are
                    confusingly similar thereto, and

                (c) remove any claims of status as an
Internet
                    Standard, including without limitation
removing
                    the RFC boilerplate.

           The IETF suggests that any citation or excerpt of
           unmodified text reference the RFC or other
document from
           which the text is derived.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg