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

> >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.
> >
> 
> I think asking the Trust to ensure this is a bit odd. 
What happens
> if they discover that a published RFC does not have the
correct
> acknowledgement?  The RFC series is archival, and we
don't want
> to change that.  Are you suggesting that they be able
to request
> a new, obsoleting RFC be issued with the correct
acknowledgement?
> And who does this review for acknowledgement?  The
Trust's
> officers?
> 
> I think the IETF should be careful of correct
acknowledgement
> and should preserve copyright notices in cases where
the
> copyright notices are permitted (either by exception,
as now,
> or by some decision on what is  generally permitted),
but
> the review for this seems to me to belong to the
parties submitting
> the documents for publication and to the community as a
whole,
> rather than to the Trust.
> 
> Have I misunderstood your intent here?

I think we're in violent agreement.  Copyright notices need
to be
preserved, and someone (need not be the IETF Trust) ought to
be
encouraging mention of the code authors in the
Acknowledgements
section of published RFCs.  I understand that RFCs are
archival
documents that can't be changed once published.

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

--On Wednesday, 18 July, 2007 14:04 -0400 Black_Davidemc.com
wrote:

>> Have I misunderstood your intent here?
> 
> I think we're in violent agreement.  Copyright notices
need to
> be preserved, and someone (need not be the IETF Trust)
ought
> to be encouraging mention of the code authors in the
> Acknowledgements section of published RFCs.  I
understand that
> RFCs are archival documents that can't be changed once
> published.

With the understanding that I'm in violent agreement too,
the
place to try to ensure/ force this is with the introductory
boilerplate and "incoming", and the standard
pre-publication
review to be sure those terms have been satisfied, not in
trying
to either demand that the Trust do things it can't do or to
insert the Trustees in the pre-publication review process
of
individual documents.

For example, we might want to consider modifying the
assertions
that someone makes in requesting that an I-D be published
to
include not only that everyone who should be acknowledged
is
acknowledged but also that any required copyright or
license
notices, especially for anything that might be construed as
"code", are preserved as needed.

But, again, it seems to me that those are requirements on
submissions, not requirements that the IETF Trust needs to
write
rules about or try to enforce or validate on a case-by-case
basis.

   john



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

below...

On 2007-07-18 20:04, Black_Davidemc.com wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I think asking the Trust to ensure this is a bit
odd.  What happens
>> if they discover that a published RFC does not have
the correct
>> acknowledgement?  The RFC series is archival, and
we don't want
>> to change that.  Are you suggesting that they be
able to request
>> a new, obsoleting RFC be issued with the correct
acknowledgement?
>> And who does this review for acknowledgement?  The
Trust's
>> officers?
>>
>> I think the IETF should be careful of correct
acknowledgement
>> and should preserve copyright notices in cases
where the
>> copyright notices are permitted (either by
exception, as now,
>> or by some decision on what is  generally
permitted), but
>> the review for this seems to me to belong to the
parties submitting
>> the documents for publication and to the community
as a whole,
>> rather than to the Trust.
>>
>> Have I misunderstood your intent here?
> 
> I think we're in violent agreement.  Copyright notices
need to be
> preserved, and someone (need not be the IETF Trust)
ought to be
> encouraging mention of the code authors in the
Acknowledgements
> section of published RFCs.  I understand that RFCs are
archival
> documents that can't be changed once published.

Maybe weasel-word the 'should' with 'as far as possible'?

     Brian

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