Hi Larry,
This sounds similar to the reasoning I have for opposing
author-specific, and especially viral, licensing in IETF
documents.
I don't want WGs and companies trying to implement standards
to be
forced to waste time trying to divine which piece of a
document has a
author-specific (possibly viral) license associated with it,
and I
certainly do not want contribution of a code snippet to
allow the
author of that snippet to impose viral licensing for the
whole IETF
document.
dbh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:33 PM
> To: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: Suggested text for text vs code
>
> > That wouldn't result in a document that explains
that we've made a
> > decision about separating licenses for text and
code. If I
> understand
> > correctly, Harald said there was consensus that
there needs to be
> > different licenses for text and code. (And I'm
not disputing that
> > consensus...) Explicitly reflecting that decision
in the document
> > would be useful as a trail of what the WG has
discussed and
decided.
>
> This confusion is why I keep insisting people should
license
> "original works
> of authorship" to IETF for open standards rather
than some
> imprecise IETF
> invention purporting to distinguish between text and
code.
> (See [1] and
> [2].)
>
> It is a waste of time to change code (for whatever open
source or
> proprietary reason!) embodying an IETF standard and
then not
> be able to
> change the IETF-published text that explains that code.
Placing this
> unnecessary burden on recipients of IETF's open
standards
> documentation is a
> penalty that serves no valid purpose yet identified and
> endorsed by this WG.
>
>
> When any of us give our copyrighted (and perhaps
patented)
> works to IETF in
> collaboration with others for the creation of industry
standards, we
> shouldn't want people sitting around in working groups
trying
> to divine what
> the difference is between code and text in IETF draft
> specifications, and
> then waste more time documenting such hair-splitting in
the
published
> official IETF specifications themselves, and even more
time within
the
> companies that implement those specifications trying to
> decide what they can
> use and what they can't.
>
> To the extent that this suggestion to distinguish code
from
> text came up for
> a vote before, but is still pending, I vote -1.
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
> [1] 17 USC 102, first sentence, at
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us
c_sec_17_000
> 00102----000-.
> html.
>
> [2] AFL 3.0, first sentence, at
www.rosenlaw.com/AFL3.0.htm.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simonjosefsson.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:53 AM
> > To: Joel M. Halpern
> > Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Suggested text for text vs code
> >
> > "Joel M. Halpern" <joelstevecrocker.com> writes:
> >
> > > My understanding of my instructions from San
Diego was to
> be explicit
> > > in the section about code rights that these
were distinct
> from text
> > > rights.
> >
> > Good! Then my suggested text to be explicit about
the separation
of
> > licenses code should be non-controversial.
> >
> > > And that I was to document that
> > > a) the code rights applied to any sections of
RFCs which
> were of the
> > > form X, Y, Z, W. A specific list of cases.
> > > b) That the trust would define a way of
marking portions
> of RFCs as
> > > code so that if there were other things that
the WG
> concluded needed
> > > to be treated as code (such as a RelaxNG
schema if I don't
include
> > > that in the list above), the the working
group can
> indicate that the
> > > code rights apply to that section as well.
> > >
> > > I much prefer being explicit in the right
place about
> what the rights
> > > apply to, rather than putting a general
description up at
> the front.
> >
> > That wouldn't result in a document that explains
that we've made a
> > decision about separating licenses for text and
code. If I
> understand
> > correctly, Harald said there was consensus that
there needs to be
> > different licenses for text and code. (And I'm
not disputing that
> > consensus...) Explicitly reflecting that decision
in the document
> > would be useful as a trail of what the WG has
discussed and
decided.
> >
> > /Simon
> >
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Joel
> > >
> > > At 10:20 AM 12/5/2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > >>I'm changing the subject because this is a
separate issue.
> > >>
> > >>Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > >> >> Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I believe that the WG has
declared consensus that it
> disagrees with
> > >> >>> you on the code/text
separation issue.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If so, please have that be
reflected in Joel's draft, so it
is
> > >> >> recorded as the WG consensus.
The code vs text
> separation is a
> > >> >> decision that has to be made
before the current
> discussions makes
> > >> >> sense. Recording that earlier
decision, which this
discussion
> > assume,
> > >> >> seems to be the appropriate way
forward.
> > >> >>
> > >> > It is reflected in Joel's draft.
> > >>
> > >>No, it does not appear to be reflect
explicitly. I re-read
Joel's
> > >>draft now, and it implicitly assumes that
rights to code
> and text will
> > >>be handled differently from each other.
You can see that in how
> > >>section 5 is divided into rights granted
for different purposes,
> > >>without discussion of how that separation
came to be. There is
> > >>nothing explicit in there to indicate that
how the
> sub-sections of 5
> > >>are outlined is based on an implicit
assumption.
> > >>
> > >>I suggest adding a paragraph before
section 5.1, in the
> introduction
> > >>text in section 5:
> > >>
> > >> The structure below assumes that there
can be
> different licenses,
> > >> and different outgoing rights, for
different parts of
> a particular
> > >> document. For example, the rights to
code portions of
> a document
> > >> may be different from the rights to
text portions of a
> document. To
> > >> permit different licenses for different
parts of a
> document was an
> > >> intentional decision, and it allows
more flexibility
> when deciding
> > >> the license for any specific parts.
> > >>
> > >>With text like that, or actually, any text
whatsoever
> that explicitly
> > >>mention the problem, I would regard the
issue closed. I
> still believe
> > >>it will be an unfortunate decision that
we'll have to
> revise in a few
> > >>years, though, but I understand that
unless someone gives
> me support
> > >>on this, the above appear to be the
current consensus.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|