#1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Ted Hardie <hardiequalcomm.com> writes:

>>>>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------
----
>>>>> Implementations of IETF standards that
incorporate pieces of IETF
>>>>> documents (such as MIBs or data tables)
need to have the right to
>>>>> produce derivative works based on those
pieces.
...
> Simon's reformulation shifts from what the
implementations need to
> what their licenses need.  That is at least a different
issue, and it
> should be tracked and resolved separately.

That sounds like a good idea.

>>Without this modification, it is possible design a
IETF policy that
>>satisfy the above resolution text but still fail my
intended point
>>here: that free implementations may need to
incorporate parts of a
>>standard, and to release the work under a license
that permits
>
> Please, Simon, recognize that  you have two intended
points:
>
> 1)implementations may need to incorporate parts of a
standard
>
> 2) some implementors have chosen licensing terms that
permit
> modifications or mandate that successor code be
licensed such
> that modifications are permitted.

Yes, agreed.

> Harald has suggested we separate this and resolve the
first issue,
> around which there seems to be little controversy. 
That doesn't
> mean that the second won't be tackled, but it means
that we
> get the item for which there is consensus nailed down
now.

As I've said, I'm fine with Harald's proposed solution.

What I'm worried about here is that we solve 1) with text
that imply
certain restrictions for 2), in particular it imply a code
vs text
split, and also the possibility of a policy that is unusable
by free
implementations.

This thread (and some off-list discussion) has probably
removed my
concerns over that though.

Thanks,
Simon

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

--On torsdag, februar 23, 2006 10:31:02 +0100 Simon
Josefsson 
<jasextundo.com> wrote:

>
>> Harald has suggested we separate this and resolve
the first issue,
>> around which there seems to be little controversy. 
That doesn't
>> mean that the second won't be tackled, but it
means that we
>> get the item for which there is consensus nailed
down now.
>
> As I've said, I'm fine with Harald's proposed
solution.
>
> What I'm worried about here is that we solve 1) with
text that imply
> certain restrictions for 2), in particular it imply a
code vs text
> split, and also the possibility of a policy that is
unusable by free
> implementations.

Yes, that's issues 1169, 1175 and 1199, which are
definitely still open.

> This thread (and some off-list discussion) has probably
removed my
> concerns over that though.

Good!





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