Comments to WG meeting

Don, 

> 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.

I would hope not, because the BSD license is GPL compatible,
and
the condition would be that as a consequence of accepting
code under
a BSD-like license, one agrees to license modifications to
that code
(and only that code) under a BSD-like license.  I agree with
your
primary concern, namely that whatever we do needs to be
compatible
with GPL and other commonly used copyleft licenses, and that
should
be part of what we tell the IETF Trust.
 
> 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.

At a high level, we agree on goals, and I suggest leaving it
to the
expert lawyers to work out the methods - that was my reason
for using
the words "should" and "to the extent
legally possible" in the bullet
of proposed guidance to the IETF Trust.  My concern about
the strong
suggestion you propose is that if many hands have touched
the code
chasing down "everyone" to ensure that the
result can go back into
the standards process becomes difficult to impossible (IETF
should not
accept GPL on material inbound to the standards process for
obvious
reasons).  If what you propose is the most that's legally
possible,
I can live with it as a fallback, but I'd prefer a
structure where
the IETF unambiguously has the legal rights to re-use
modified RFC code
excerpts.

> > 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.

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

[grouping replies here]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Black_Davidemc.com wrote:
> I would hope not, because the BSD license is GPL
compatible, and the
> condition would be that as a consequence of accepting
code under a
> BSD-like license, one agrees to license modifications
to that code
> (and only that code) under a BSD-like license.

That's actually not the case for the BSD license; it
doesn't require
you to license modifications under the BSD. (That is common
practice,
though.) [But since we agree on the goals, it's possible I
may be
misunderstanding you.]

> I'd prefer a structure where the IETF unambiguously
has the legal
> rights to re-use modified RFC code excerpts.

AFAICT, the only way to do that is with some kind of
copyleft license,
which has the practical problems with GPL compatibility
above.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Bede B. McCall wrote:
> A fallback position is to restrict the allowable
modification of
> published code to implementations of the specification,
and
> encourage submitters to explicitly permit broader use
of their work
> wherever possible.

Unfortunatly, this restriction also makes it impossible to
incorporate
this code into GPLed implementations (or implementations
that link to
GPLed libraries) as it restricts the use of the code to
implementations.

> Clearly this is less desirable, but in my very limited
experience it
> has seemed less likely to antagonize corporate patent
attorneys and
> improves the chances you'll get cooperation with open
source
> reference implementations.

I think if we couch the requirement for code excerpts with
the
advantages of allowing other people to use the code we can
provide
enough advantages to sway those weighing the advice of the
coporate
attorneys.

> In any case, I think it would be best to recommend a
policy allowing
> unrestricted reuse of published code, recommending the
fallback policy
> restrictions only as a way to address specific IPR
concerns when they
> arise.

I agree that the unrestricted policy is the best way, but
the
restricted policy won't be compatible with the goals of
maximal
reusability.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Personally, I think my choice in the
mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators.  They'll run
almost
anything.  And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux
box into
the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
 -- Jeff Dege, jdegewinternet.com

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

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