RE: Improvements to section 5.{1,2} in outbound-rights

["Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>]

Through all of this discussion, I'm still left wondering whether the
Academic Free License (AFL 3.0), www.rosenlaw.com/AFL3.0.htm (also published
at www.opensource.org as an OSI-approved license), would satisfy the IETF
policies? Can I contribute both code and text to IETF under AFL 3.0? 

Regarding contributors' commitment to specific outbound rights, see AFL 3.0
section 1(c). I would like it if something like AFL 3.0 also served as
IETF's outbound license.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:44 AM
> To: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Improvements to section 5.{1,2} in outbound-rights
> 
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 
> > How about the following?
> 
> >  5.1.  Rights Granted for Reproduction of RFCs
> >    It has long been IETF policy to encourage copying and distribution
> >    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, and to distribute them to anyone.
>            ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
> Diff mark by me, please correct me if I missed another diff.  It's okay,
> maybe a bit verbose, but less chances to get it wrong and split hairs.
> 
> 
> > 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 and
> >    distributing the quotes.  Such excerpts may be of any length and in
> >    any context.  Translation of quotations is also to be permitted.
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> At some point it will be too verbose, when folks desperately look for a
> "trap", and there is none.  You could also say that any "quotation of
> translations" are permitted, translating pieces of text outside of their
> complete context can be difficult.
> 
> > What remain is the current last sentence of 5.2:
> >    All such quotations SHOULD be attributed properly to the IETF and
> >    the IETF document from which they are taken.
> 
> > I wonder whether lawyers will understand the fine precision intended
> > by that SHOULD?
> 
> Lawyers not understanding a 2119-SHOULD probably can't help with this
> job.  The SHOULD IMO only means that there can be compelling reasons to
> violate it, e.g. you can post grep- or diff-results without annotations,
> you can write "be liberal" without a link RFC 1123, and you can talk
> about "features with a high astonishment factor" without a link to REXX
> and Mike Cowlishaw - IIRC in an IAB document Harald wrote "traditional".
> 
> >  How about:
> >    All such quotations SHOULD be attributed properly to the IETF and
> >    the IETF document from which they are taken.  That means that there
> >    should be a strong recommendation that all such quotations be
> >    attributed, but it should not be a legal requirement for being able
> >    to quote a document.
> 
> Actually "cannot be".  Otherwise the lawyers could send us back an essay
> about "fair use" that nobody (excl. lawyers) can decode.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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