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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> So the BSD license may have the same problem as the GPL license in
>>> this regard.
>>>     
>>
>> Right.  That's why I suggest that a "IETF source code license" may be
>> a poor idea, especially if that would preclude the ability of
>> including BSD/GPL code in RFCs.  Source code in RFCs are useful.
>>
>>   
> I have a problem understanding the consistency of your stance.
>
> You've fought long and hard for NOT permitting the publication of
> source code in RFCs where modification was impossible. Why wasn't that
> useful?

Someone had the same reaction privately, so I suppose I should explain
my stance.  My preference is, in order of priority:

1. RFCs (entire RFCs [1]) should be free to distribute and modify,
   under specific conditions required to solve the problem of modified
   works implying or claiming to be the real work.

2. Having code in RFCs is better than having no code in RFCs,
   regardless of license.

I realize that it may be the case that some aspects of 2 work against
some aspects of 1, and depending on your priorities, you'd might
change 2 into "non-free code is worse than no code" and then this
issue becomes a non-issue.  I could see good arguments for either
case.

I don't want to a priori assume that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive
goals.  There may be an intersection that is acceptable.

To understand what I mean with a compromise between 1 and 2, consider
this situation:

We require RFCs to be modifiable, but invent a new document serie "RFC
Attachments" which is permitted to contain non-free material, because
such material may be useful for implementers.  The attachments could
be stored in a file RFC4711-foobar.txt.  Then, it would be legal to
include the RFC itself in free software, as long as you don't also
store the RFC attachment in the free software.

This approach would solve the problem Harald mentioned that, to the
extent this really is a problem, it is difficult to read and implement
an RFC without exposing yourself to reading copyrighted code that you
can't use.

Of course, this was a strawman that may have obvious problems, but I
don't want to assume that it is impossible to solve those problems.

/Simon

[1] I consider the assumption that we must distinguish between code
and text a mistake, people have attempted to derive useful definitions
of code and text and failed before.  Until the WG is approaching a
solution to this problem, I'd continue advocating a simpler solution
(entire modifiable RFCs) because I believe we won't find a good
solution to the problem of separating code and text.

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