[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions
My personal understanding of what I thought I was trying to say.
1) Obviously, whatever I meant it needs to be fixed. Suggestions
such as the one below are necessary.
2) There are two different issues that we had said we wanted to
address in this section, as I understood it. One is the issue
mentioned separately by Brian, and one is the issue mentioned
separately by Simon.
a) With regard to code which is also available under other terms (for
example because it was written after the IETF code segment) we wanted
to acknowledge that this was perfectly acceptable, and suggest thtat
techniques like contacting the author were appropriate for finding
these. (Originally it just said "contact the author" as per John's
comment below. I changed that because someone had said roughly ~it
is not always necessary or desirable to contact the author.~)
b) With regard to code that is licensed under different rules with
some restrictions not in the IETF rules, that code can not be
included as sample code in the IETF documents. I was told that the
rough consensus was against allowing more restrictive licenses to be
included in the documents. So, for example, any code that requires
that changes be returned to the origin can not be included as code in
an IETF document according to these rules. Would it be nice to be
able to use such code? Sure. But having multiple different sets of
rules, and license terms in documents, and efforts to decide ~are we
willing to include this code with this license?~ was not what the
group decided.
Yours,
Joel
At 09:47 AM 5/3/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:44 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
<simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
6.5. Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions
There have been contexts where the material in an IETF
contribution is also available under other license terms.
The IETF wishes to be able to include content which is
available under such licenses. It From ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org Thu May 03 19:41:12 2007
Return-path: <ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Hjkv6-0000Tm-7z; Thu, 03 May 2007 19:41:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hjkv5-0000Tc-Cy
for ipr-wg at ietf.org; Thu, 03 May 2007 19:41:07 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.64])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hjkv5-0000I2-10
for ipr-wg at ietf.org; Thu, 03 May 2007 19:41:07 -0400
Received: from [204.117.146.178] (helo=JMHLap3.stevecrocker.com)
by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1Hjkv4-0003QQ-8v
for ipr-wg at ietf.org; Thu, 03 May 2007 19:41:06 -0400
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20070503193501.03657788 at stevecrocker.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 19:41:01 -0400
To: ipr-wg at ietf.org
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
In-Reply-To: <F0E89B0F3A8DFF510B73EFAA at [192.168.1.110]>
References: <E1Hieh0-0006LV-Ks at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
<871why6sik.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>
<F0E89B0F3A8DFF510B73EFAA at [192.168.1.110]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-ELNK-Trace: 9f083ca8aeb2d326d5a073bfd238dd844d2b10475b571120fcf6aca79e5ff0fa6761c1e1a685b8def5e1c54ef8bb2d6d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 204.117.146.178
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d2e37451f7f22841e3b6f40c67db0f
Subject: Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
<mailto:ipr-wg-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
<mailto:ipr-wg-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org
My personal understanding of what I thought I was trying to say.
1) Obviously, whatever I meant it needs to be fixed. Suggestions
such as the one below are necessary.
2) There are two different issues that we had said we wanted to
address in this section, as I understood it. One is the issue
mentioned separately by Brian, and one is the issue mentioned
separately by Simon.
a) With regard to code which is also available under other terms (for
example because it was written after the IETF code segment) we wanted
to acknowledge that this was perfectly acceptable, and suggest thtat
techniques like contacting the author were appropriate for finding
these. (Originally it just said "contact the author" as per John's
comment below. I changed that because someone had said roughly ~it
is not always necessary or desirable to contact the author.~)
b) With regard to code that is licensed under different rules with
some restrictions not in the IETF rules, that code can not be
included as sample code in the IETF documents. I was told that the
rough consensus was against allowing more restrictive licenses to be
included in the documents. So, for example, any code that requires
that changes be returned to the origin can not be included as code in
an IETF document according to these rules. Would it be nice to be
able to use such code? Sure. But having multiple different sets of
rules, and license terms in documents, and efforts to decide ~are we
willing to include this code with this license?~ was not what the
group decided.
Yours,
Joel
At 09:47 AM 5/3/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:44 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
<simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
6.5. Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions
There have been contexts where the material in an IETF
contribution is also available under other license terms.
The IETF wishes to be able to include content which is
available under such licenses. It is desirable to indicate
in the IETF contribution that other licenses are available.
It would be inappropriate and confusing if such additional
licenses restricted the rights the IETF intends to grant in
the content of RFCS.
The first sentence strikes me as confusing when reading the
second sentence. In the second sentence, the material is
already included in the IETF contribution, therefor a "wish to
be able to include it" seems confusing. Why wish to include
something that is already included?
I agree with Simon that this is confusing.
Let me take a shot at guessing what the intent might be.
Suppose I submit something as an IETF Contribution. Suppose I have
granted, or am willing to grant, licenses to others under other
circumstances. I think what is being said here is that the IETF
understands that it is in everyone's interest to make the
information about those other licenses, or about how the information
may be obtained, available.
Is it possible that we can sweep away the circumlocutions by simply
saying something like, probably after the "authors retain all
rights" statement:
In addition to the license granted to the IETF, contributors
how have made other licensing arrangements may document
those arrangements as part of the contribution, using
mechanisms that may be specified from time to time by the
IETF Trust. The absence of documentation of additional
licenses should not be taken to indicate that those licenses
are not available; instead, the author should be contacted
for information as needed.
Note the desire to avoid getting hung up in boilerplate here. Then,
if I were the Trust, I'd construct, in consultation with Counsel,
one sentence that said something like "Additional licenses may be
available from the author for some or all of this material, see
<link>", where <link> is supplied by the author.
When that link is essentially a pointer to some well-known literary
work, I'd expect to see something like "The material in this
Contribution is also available under the Tie Your Hands and Feet
Together (TYHAF) license whose text is available at <link>. Where it
is more individualized and the author does not have a convenient
mechanism for available for providing a stable link, I think the
IETF should provide for posting such license materials on the same
basis that we provide for posting IPR disclosures of other varieties.
Does that disentangle things?
Or, if I've missed the intent of the that section, could someone
please explain it in plain English (rather than pseudo-lawyer)?
john
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg