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

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

How then do you deal with the changes in the licensing model over the years.
These constrain the IP submitted and create a set of user rights  that will
have to be administered separately forever or the IETF breaches the contract
with those clients and all who participated in those efforts.

This is a critical consideration and design requirement moving forward - the
IETF cannot ignore the agreements and commitment's it contractually bears
for all of that earlier submitted IP.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
To: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting
slot)


> But, even the GPL license conflicts with the policy that I understood
> to be the rough consensus of the working group.
>
>
> Personally, if we start allowing other, more stringent conditions on
> code in RFCs then I conclude that we have wasted the entire exercise
> to date.  Either we have to debate a whole list of conditions, and
> decide which ones are acceptable.  Or we have to declare that every
> working group has to make that decision for itself.  In which case we
> have not accomplished a darned thing, and likely have set up a
> situation in which many rFCs will have code that is not useable for
> many purposes.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> PS: If it were useful, I can believe we could find a way to add
> notices which explicitly matched our conditions, but required notice
> preservation.  It is not clear to me that such is useful.  It is
> clear to me that such is not what Simon is asking for.,
>
> At 05:07 AM 10/6/2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu> writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:20:02 -0400, "Joel M. Halpern"
> > > <joel at stevecrocker.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I would be very uncomfortable if every author could slap any
> > >> restrictions they want on the code in RFCs.
> > >> That would seem to distinctly fail the agreed goal.
> > >>
> > > It would also drive the IESG crazy, since it would have to evaluate
each
> > > and every variant license presented to it.  That's the sort of thing
that
> > > gets lots of documents bogged down.
> >
> >The only reason the IESG do this appear to be because the policy imply
> >that they need to do it.  If we change the policy and permit code
> >licensed under non-IETF licenses to be published, the IESG wouldn't
> >have to do that work.  I assume that would make the IESG happier, and
> >allow them to spend more time on technical matters instead.
> >
> >There are corner-cases, though, for licenses that even conflict with
> >the IETF copying conditions, which may argue for establishing a set of
> >known-good licenses, e.g. the revised BSD or the GPL licenses that
> >both appear to me be compatible with the IETF copying conditions if we
> >permit additional copyright notices, and strongly encourage authors to
> >pick one of the recommended licenses.
> >
> >I see no reason why IETF documents shouldn't be able to include code
> >licensed under the BSD/GPL or other similar licenses.  It would
> >improve many RFCs.
> >
> >/Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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