Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting slot)

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>]

The whole point of the exercise is to ensure that those making use 
of  IETF RFCs can do so without difficulty.
We have agreed that making use of code from RFCs is a good think.
We have agreed that to do so, one needs the right to make changes to that code.

Allowing authors to place additional restrictions on that code is 
simply not consistent with the above.
The existence of additional copyright holders, who all grant the 
necessary rights, should be acknowledged.
But putting additional licensing text into the code fragments is a disaster.

There would be no point in having defined outbound rights.

With regard to the comment about getting the rights we need, clearly 
if we go with requiring unlimited use of code from RFCs, then we have 
to require that the IETF be given the right to allow that by all 
contributors.  In general, inbound rights have to be a superset of 
outbound rights.  But we can arrange that going forward.

Simon argued cogently on the list that code that could only be used, 
but not modified, was not helpful.  Well then, we should not permit 
licenses in code in RFCs that have that restriction.  Going down the 
path of trying to decide exactly what licenses we will permit is 
clearly a disaster.  We decided to avoid that.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern


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