At 8:42 AM -0700 6/6/06, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>What aspect of Qualcomm's copyrighted works do you seek
to
>protect that could possibly justify burdening each
working group to separate
>"text" from "code" in IETF
specifications?
I have never spoken on this list for Qualcomm, and you are
outside
the bounds of IETF culture to impute a corporate motive to
my
contribution. I am not speaking for Qualcomm, the IESG, the
Episcopal Church or anyone else with whom I happen to have
an affiliation.
I also don't think this is nearly as burdensome as you do.
Drafting
a description of code that is valid for all IETF documents
may be a
daunting task, but I think it will be pretty obvious to most
folks
writing a document which bits could be passed to a compiler
or an
interpreter and which could not. You can invent or imagine
corner
cases, but I strongly suspect that it will be
straightforward in
most cases we deal with.
I think Simon's recent effort in
draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-04.txt is
instructive. It was not much work for him to identify the
bits
for which he was author and could grant additional rights
(see
his section 15); I think it took two rounds of email to do
it. Note that
he didn't need to know what was code to do that; he only
needed
to know which bits were not ISOC's.
He also knew going in that section 11.1 and 11.2 were code
and, maybe
more importantly, were code for which different copying
conditions should
apply. Marking them as such with some token or
well-understood phrase would
have not added much to the burden of publication. The real
hassle was that
adding the notices related to his copying conditions and the
code's
open source license requires IAB approval of a variance to
3978. Getting that
sorted out is a bigger burden than we need, and I'm glad
Simon has
proposed a way forward from it.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|