The copyright text didn't sneak in. It was the consensus as
I was
informed of it at the time.
If the consensus shifts, I am happy to remove the word
copyright from
6.5, while retaining the prohibition on multiple licenses.
Yours,
Joel
At 03:03 PM 7/24/2007, Black_David emc.com wrote:
>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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
