Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> writes:
>
>   
> > 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.
> >     
>
> That would make it impossible to include example code licensed under,
> e.g., the BSD, MIT or similar licenses, in IETF document.  Doing that
> has been done with good results in several RFCs.  It can be argued that
> including example code, under various licenses (including less
> permissive than this, which there are many examples of in past RFCs),
> furthers the goal of the IETF, and therefor should be permitted.  The
> argument against appear to be variations on the following theme:
>   
The argument against is that it's onerous and nearly impossible for 
users to track down the provenance and licensing of each individual 
piece of code in an RFC to verify its usability, unless the IETF can 
help them.

The conclusion of the WG, as I understood it, was that we wanted 
implementors to be able to exercise the set of rights that the IETF 
grants to users of IETF code to all users of all IETF code (going 
forward from the day of implementation).
>   
> > 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.
> >     
>
> This situation would be the same as for patents.
>   
No, because the publication of a text (such as an RFC, or a citation 
from an RFC) can never violate a patent.
The publication of a text can violate a copyright.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg