Suggested text for text vs code (was: Re: #1400 Opinion poll - question draft)

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

I'm changing the subject because this is a separate issue.

Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:

> 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.

No, it does not appear to be reflect explicitly.  I re-read Joel's
draft now, and it implicitly assumes that rights to code and text will
be handled differently from each other.  You can see that in how
section 5 is divided into rights granted for different purposes,
without discussion of how that separation came to be.  There is
nothing explicit in there to indicate that how the sub-sections of 5
are outlined is based on an implicit assumption.

I suggest adding a paragraph before section 5.1, in the introduction
text in section 5:

  The structure below assumes that there can be different licenses,
  and different outgoing rights, for different parts of a particular
  document.  For example, the rights to code portions of a document
  may be different from the rights to text portions of a document.  To
  permit different licenses for different parts of a document was an
  intentional decision, and it allows more flexibility when deciding
  the license for any specific parts.

With text like that, or actually, any text whatsoever that explicitly
mention the problem, I would regard the issue closed.  I still believe
it will be an unfortunate decision that we'll have to revise in a few
years, though, but I understand that unless someone gives me support
on this, the above appear to be the current consensus.

Thanks,
Simon

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