RE: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w licensing guidance

Simon,

Thanks for weighing in on this.

> > I asked a lawyer to review the -outgoing document,
and the following
> > text in Section 6.3 turned up a concern:
> >
> >    As such, the rough consensus is that the IETF
trust is to grant
> >    rights such that code components of IETF
contributions can be
> >    extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any
way desired. 
> >
> > The concern is that the software licensing
implications of that
> > text are not clear to someone who has not been
following our
> > discussions and hence the text could be *misread*
as permitting or
> > encouraging the use of licenses with copyleft (aka
viral or
> > share-alike) and/or patent license provisions.
> >
> > While it should be the case that code in IETF RFCs
can be placed
> > under almost any software license, (including
those with copyleft
> > and patent license provisions), the IETF Trust
should not be doing
> > so on its own initiative.
> 
> I disagree -- I believe the IETF Trust should do what
the IETF asks
them
> to do.  Limiting them to some set of licenses at this
point seems to
> short-circuit their ability to do their work.
> 
> There may be perfectly good reasons for the IETF Trust
to release some
> set of contributions under, say, the GPL.  For example,
consider
> software tools written for the IETF and assigned to the
IETF Trust.

I think I agree with the latter paragraph, but let's focus
on code in
Internet-Drafts and RFCs for now, and leave software tools
for another
day.

> > Hence, in the outbound document, I think it would
be good to add
> > a statement that the IETF Trust should avoid
adding software license
> > obligations beyond those already present in a
contribution, and
noting
> > that both copyleft and patent license provisions
in software
licenses
> > depart from the goal of "extracted, modified
and used by anyone in
> > any way desired," but also noting that the
ability to place
extracted
> > code under such licenses is an important aspect of
"use in any
> > way desired."
> 
> I think this is somewhat confused -- the IETF Trust
must decide under
> which license outgoing contributions will be made
available on.  They
> can't use the -incoming license as the outgoing rights,
since that
> license only grants rights to the IETF Trust.  Thus, it
is not trivial
> to see what "adding software license
obligations" really mean.  Some
set
> of obligations -- e.g., crediting the copyright owner
and/or author --
> may be perfectly fine.  The IETF Trust should be able
to demand in a
> license that users of the contributions retain
copyright and/or author
> notices.  Thus, I don't think your suggested
modification is a good
> idea, at least not without much more detail and
consideration to avoid
> unintended side effects.

The concern is about adding obligations to outbound
licensing of code
in Internet-Drafts and RFCs when those obligations have the
effect of
restricting practical usage of the code beyond what is
necessary (e.g.,
necessary to comply with whatever inbound terms and
conditions were
used).
Copyright acknowledgements are not a problem here.  To be
specific,
(IMHO) the IETF Trust should not be adding copyleft, share
alike or
patent license terms and conditions to licensing of outbound
code -
such terms and conditions should only be used for code that
was already
under corresponding terms and conditions when it came
inbound.  Whether
and under what circumstances these sorts of terms and
conditions are
allowed for inbound code is an inbound issue for the other
thread.

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

RE: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w licensing guidance

Thread: RE: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w licensing guidance