Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi> writes:

> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> You're still free to incorporate parts of the documents (to the degree
>>> copyright law allows in any case).
>>
>> I'm clearly exceeding the amount permitted by copyright laws.
>
> Just for clarity, what I was saying is that whether or not copying is 
> allowed, I'm allowed to write in my hypothetical documentation:
>
> "RFC xxxx describes the functions as follows:
>
>   Routine                         Function
>    -------                         --------
>    gss_init_sec_context            Initiate a security context with
>                                    a peer application.
>    gss_accept_sec_context          Accept a security context
>                                    initiated by a peer application.
>    gss_delete_sec_context          Discard a security context.
>    gss_process_context_token       Process a token on a security
>                                    context from a peer application.
>    gss_context_time                Determine for how long a context
>                                    will remain valid.
>    gss_inquire_context             Obtain information about a
>                                    security context.
>    gss_wrap_size_limit             Determine token-size limit for
>                                    gss_wrap on a context.
>    gss_export_sec_context          Transfer a security context to
>                                    another process.
>    gss_import_sec_context          Import a transferred context.
>
> We note that gss_export_sec_context actually does more than just 
> transfers the security context, ...."
>
> Similar could apply to longer extracts especially if the right to 
> redistribute (unmodified) copies is granted, but you'd probably need 
> to make the edits/clarifications/etc. as diffs after an extract.

You are quoting my manual here, and not the RFC, since I noticed some
typographical changes I made.  Doing typographical changes through a
diffs is a problem.

>> For
>> example, in my GSS-API implementation, the manual contain function
>> descriptions which are copied from the RFC:
>>
>> http://josefsson.org/gss/manual/gss.html#Context_002dLevel-Routines
>>
>> That is pretty verbatim from the RFC, although the markup was modified
>> to work with the online documentation system I'm using.
>>
>> The current IETF copying permission appear to require me to rewrite
>> those descriptions.  In doing that, I am certain I will make mistakes.
>> I believe it would be in the interest of interoperability, and the
>> goals of the IETF, to allow me to use the RFC text in my manual.  And
>> the manual should be possible to modify by my users.
>
> Would doing at least a part of this be a logically equivalent to the 
> case of MIB modules?  I agree that documents describing APIs 
> are a bit of special case.

Agreed, but there appear to be special cases in most of my projects.
In Libidn, the special cases are the long tables of Unicode code
points.  In GSS, it is an API documentation.  In GNU SASL, it is the
introduction text and security considerations.  In Kerberos 5, it is
the ASN.1 schema.  I think these special cases is a sign of a more
general problem, so I'm attempting to address the general problem.

> Note that if you needed to modify a part of it, you could maybe insert 
> a note after a quote from the RFC stating which parts you believe are 
> not relevant.

Again, I don't think that is reasonable in end-user manuals.

Thanks,
Simon

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