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

Section 6.5 is mostly about avoidance of additional licenses
-
the word "copyright" seems to have snuck in there
and ought to
be expunged (IMHO).   Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simonjosefsson.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:24 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: brian.e.carpentergmail.com; hardiequalcomm.com; ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: Re: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w

> licensing guidance
> 
> That text sounds good to me.  Note that section 6.5
currently 
> says some
> rather opposite things wrt to additional copyright and

> license notices.
> Replacing that text with your paragraph would be good.
> 
> /Simon
> 
> Black_Davidemc.com writes:
> 
> > Trying again with improved text:
> >
> >   To the extent reasonably possible, the IETF
Trust should
> >   preserve copyright notices that accompany code
and encourage
> >   acknowledgement of code authors in published
RFCs and other
> >   IETF documents.
> >
> > I substituted "encourage" for
"ensure" as I think that goes to
> > the heart of Ted's concern.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian.e.carpentergmail.com] 
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:03 PM
> >> To: Black, David
> >> Cc: hardiequalcomm.com; ipr-wgietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3:
vague s/w 
> >> licensing guidance
> >> 
> >> 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