Re: #1400 Opinion poll - question draft

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>   
> > I believe that the WG has declared consensus that it disagrees with
> > you on the code/text separation issue.
> >     
>
> If so, please have that be reflected in Joel's draft, so it is
> recorded as the WG consensus.  The code vs text separation is a
> decision that has to be made before the current discussions makes
> sense.  Recording that earlier decision, which this discussion assume,
> seems to be the appropriate way forward.
>   
It is reflected in Joel's draft.

It is also reflected in the text of the consensus from San Diego.

And I sent you this note on January 17:

> Simon,
>
> --On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 15:02:54 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
> <jas at extundo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't see consensus for *dis*allowing "modified text" either, but
> > > I'd like to establish the pieces of consensus that we have, so that we
> > > don't have to loop around *those* endlessly.
> >
> > You agreed that we don't have consensus on how to separate "code" and
> > "text", but still you wish to continue down that road.  I don't
> > understand the motivation for that.  It seems like short-cutting the
> > interesting discussion on principles in order to achieve some
> > milestones that doesn't solve the expressed problems, results that may
> > even further complicate the license situation.
>
> I'm ruling you out of order here.
>
> It's perfectly OK for you to argue that we need to treat text the same 
> way we treat code.
>
> But as far as I can tell, you are the only person arguing that we 
> should not be conducting the discussion by considering them separately 
> - and I consider THAT to be likely to derail the debate.
>
> Welcome to "rough" consensus.
>
>                      Harald
I did not see any sign of support for your position.

This issue is closed.
>   
> > The question of how to formulate the permissions granted from the
> > author to the IETF is part of the "incoming" discussion - and the
> > question of how to make the incoming rights be as stable as possible,
> > so that we do NOT have another round of "go back to the authors",
> > will, I believe, be a heavily featured item of that discussion.
> >     
>
> Right.
>
>   
> > "Copy and distribute" is allowed for any part of the RFC. If that
> > isn't clear from the rest of the document, this needs changing. But
> > it's not what we're currently discussing.
> >     
>
> The text in the document doesn't contain the word "distribute".  If I
> remember correctly, it is currently permitted to only copy and
> distribute entire RFCs, not parts of RFCs.
>   
5.1.  Rights Granted for Reproduction of RFCs

  It has long been IETF policy to encourage copying of RFCs in full.
  This permits wide dissemination of the material, without risking loss
  of context or meaning.  The IETF wishes to continue to permit anyone
  to make full copies and translations of RFCs.

5.2.  Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions

  There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit the quoting
  without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions.  Such
  excerpts may be of any length and in any context.  Translation of
  quotations is also to be permitted.  All such quotations SHOULD be
  attributed properly to the IETF and the IETF document from which they
  are taken.

You're right that the word "distribute" does not occur.
If you're suggesting that these 2 paragraphs are not clear enough in 
expressing the desire to permit distribution, that's a separate (and 
reasonable) issue. Send text.
> You didn't address why you dropped the "by anyone" part, which amounts
> to a similar error that is in BCP 78 now: granting rights to the
> IETF/ISOC only, and not the "everyone".  A license statement, and even
> an intention for a license statement, must be clear on whom license
> the material and to whom.
>   

You're right - Frank asked for the last 4 words to be dropped, not the 
last 6. I'll restore those 2 words in the version I send out when I call 
the question.

FWIW: Alternative 1 is what's in the draft now (no changes).
Alternative 2 is what I percieve Frank's counter-proposal to be, based 
on the editing instructions he has sent to the list.

Nothing in the proposed poll text should be taken as me supporting a 
position; I'll list my name when I report the poll results.

                   Harald



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