> This sounds similar to the reasoning I have for
opposing
> author-specific, and especially viral, licensing in
IETF documents.
I don't know what you mean by "author-specific"
licensing.
So-called "viral" licenses (I prefer the term
"reciprocal" as being less
associated with disease states), even though they are
wonderful for
encouraging free software and discouraging free riders, are
also
incompatible with open standards. That is because open
standards must be
available for implementation in proprietary software also.
If someone here is proposing allowing reciprocal licenses
for either IETF
contributions or IETF out-licensing, I vote -1 on that too.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David B Harrington [mailto:dbharrington comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:37 PM
> To: lrosenrosenlaw.com; ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: Suggested text for text vs code
>
> 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:lrosenrosenlaw.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
|