Brian,
That sounds reasonable (copyleft and patent licenses are
the things that concern my lawyers, but I think they can
be implied by this sort of language) - some minor tweaks:
The IETF Trust should avoid adding software license
obligations beyond those already present in a contribution,
so as to strictly maintain the broadest possible rights
of extraction, modification and use by anyone in any way
desired. Extraction, modification and use of code outside
the IETF includes creation of further derived works
that may carry additional license obligations.
Plus a sentence to acknowledge Simon's concern:
The IETF Trust should preserve copyright notices that
accompany code and ensure that authors of code are
acknowledged in published RFCs and other IETF documents.
Thanks,
--David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:08 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: simonjosefsson.org; haraldalvestrand.no; ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: Re: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w
> licensing guidance
>
> David,
>
> I suspect you are asking for a few words too many by
explicitly
> mentioning copyleft etc. How about something a bit
simpler like
>
> The IETF Trust should avoid adding software license
> obligations beyond those already present in a
contribution,
> so as to strictly maintain the right to extraction,
modification
> and use by anyone in any way desired (which may
include
> further derived works with additional license
obligations).
>
> Brian
>
> On 2007-07-17 18:03, Black_Davidemc.com wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
