Ted Hardie <hardie qualcomm.com> writes:
> At 4:30 PM +0200 4/25/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
>>
>>> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that
we resolve this:
>>>
>>> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the
IETF should allow
>>> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from
all parts of published
>>> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
>>> medium it is used in.
>>>
>>> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
>>> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>>>
>>> Note that this resolution of this issue does
not touch the issue of
>>> modified versions at all.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>>It seems fine, but lacking in detail.
>
> Hi Simon,
> My basic take is that the issues you raise below are
real,
> but should be distinguished from this issue. While I
believe "re-format" is
> inherently part of the "excerpts of any
length" (because I can
> concatentate excerpts from pages to get rid of line
breaks, etc.),
There is a limit to that kind of technical obstruction of
the letters
of the license allow though; for example, you could hardly
excerpt
parts of sentences and concatenate them together and claim
it is a
verbatim excerpt from the RFC.
When deciding whether a particular usage is consistent with
the spirit
of a license, additional discussions and examples, like the
ones I
provided, are useful to indicate the intention behind the
license.
I tried to explore where we want that limit to be.
> I think it could be and perhaps should be explicitly
included in the
> resolution to this issue.
> But let's take anything that says "fix",
"improve", or "incorporate"
> to a separate issue. Those aren't nearly as clean,
and before wrestling
> with the devil in those details, I really want to say
that we've agreed on
> *something*.
Right. Moving my concern to #1169 seems fine.
Thanks,
Simon
> best regards,
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
>
>
>>I wish that we can address typographical and
editorial changes here,
>>either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow
them explicitly.
>>
>>Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is
any disagreement over
>>your simple permission grant above. However the
problem is in the
>>interpretation of what it means, so I believe it
should not be
>>resolved with too brief text, or it will come up
again later on.
>>
>>This is also a "devil in the detail"
that is causing problems in
>>practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim
quoting rights give
>>me the right to make minor changes that may amount
to a copyright
>>infringement if it is done enough times in a
product.
>>
>>Do you think that typographical/editorial
modifications should be
>>permitted or not?
>>
>>Some proposed paths to take:
>>
>>1)
>>
>>I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in
order to e.g.:
>>
>>* remove page breaks
>>
>>* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width
>>
>>* add text to fit a particular circumstance. For
example, it is often
>> useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment,
which for longer
>> quotes typically require that you prefix each line
with '//'.
>>
>>and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:
>>
>>* fix typos
>>
>>* improve ascii art in a real book
>>
>>* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API,
incorporate changes from
>> the RFC errate. The reason is that it does not
make sense to say,
>> in the man page for foo():
>>
>> RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive. An
>> errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.
>>
>> Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:
>>
>> RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count
must be 0-256
>> inclusive.
>>
>> Admittedly, this small example is short enough to
not be a copyright
>> infringement, but in the real world the changes
may well be too
>> large.
>>
>>The text to grant these rights could be kept
abstract and does not
>>have to discuss details. One suggestion to start
discussions:
>>
>>"Modifications that are of typographical or
editorial nature are
>>permitted.
>>
>>"Examples of typographical changes include
removal of page breaks,
>>re-flowing the text to fit a particular column
width, and adding '//',
>>/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a
source code.
>>Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
>>art, and applying updates from the RFC
errata."
>>
>>2)
>>
>>Explicitly disallow this. One suggestion to start
discussions:
>>
>>"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
>>extracts are allowed."
>>
>>"Examples of typographical changes include
removal of page breaks,
>>re-flowing the text to fit a particular column
width, and adding '//',
>>/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a
source code.
>>Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
>>art, and applying updates from the RFC
errata."
>>
>>3)
>>
>>Something completely different.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Simon
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
|