This issue is now #1400 in the tracker.
And I think it's time for one of my (in)famous opinion polls.
First - let's see if I can get the question right. If it's OK, we'll go on
to state opinions. So please do NOT spend bandwidth on stating your opinion
now - this is about whether the question is right.
Question formulation follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We have two alternative formulations suggested for section 5.3 of the draft:
1) Original:
IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
processed by a computer. These may be ABNF definitions, XML Schemas
or DTDs, MIBs, or even classical programming code. These are include
for clarity and precision in specification. It is clearly
beneficial, when such items are included in IETF contributions, to
permit the inclusion of such code fragments in products which
implement the contribution. It has been pointed out that in several
important contexts, use of such code requires the ability to modify
the code. One common example of this is simply the need to adapt
code for use in specific contexts (languages, compilers, tool
systems, etc.) Such use frequently requires some changes to the text
of the code from the IETF contribution. Another example is that code
included in open source products is frequently licensed to permit any
and all of the code to be modified. Since we want this code included
in such products, it follows that we need to permit such
modification. While there has been discussion of restricting the
rights to make such modifications in some way, the rough consensus is
that such restrictions are likely a bad idea, and are certainly very
complex to define.
As such, the rough consensus is that code components of IETF
contributions can be extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any
way desired.
2) Reformulation:
IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
processed by a computer. These may be ABNF definitions, XML Schemas
or DTDs, MIBs, or even classical programming code. These are include
for clarity and precision in specification. It is clearly
beneficial, when such items are included in IETF contributions, to
permit the inclusion of such code fragments in products which
implement the contribution. It has been pointed out that in several
important contexts, use of such code requires the ability to modify
the code. One common example of this is simply the need to adapt
code for use in specific contexts (languages, compilers, tool
systems, etc.) Such use frequently requires some changes to the text
of the code from the IETF contribution. Another example is that code
included in open source products is frequently licensed to permit any
and all of the code to be modified. Since we want this code included
in such products, it follows that we need to permit such
modification. While there has been discussion of restricting the
rights to make such modifications in some way, the rough consensus is
that such restrictions are likely a bad idea, and are certainly very
complex to define.
As such, the rough consensus is that code components of IETF
contributions can be extracted, modified, and used.
Draft authors or editors MAY state that substantial
modifications based on the published code have to be
"shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso.
There were 14 people who stated at the San Diego meeting that they were
part of a consensus for the first version. While the second alternative was
not explicitly put on the table in San Diego, I think the debate has been
circling around the issue long enough that it's reasonable to consider
these 14 as not supporting the second - but it's better to ask than to
blindly assume that. So I'll give more than two alternatives:
A) I stated a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1
B) I stated a preference in San Diego, but prefer version 2
C) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1
D) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 2
E) I have another opinion, which is...
----------------------------------------------------------
Remember: I AM NOT ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO STATE AN OPINION NOW.
I am asking on whether the question formulation is "good enough".
When trying to evalate responses, I intend to look at the number of people
who choose A and B, and see how they match up with the 14:0 distribution of
people who stated an opinion in San Diego. If they all choose A, I'll count
the 14 people in San Diego as preferring version 1; if they spread out,
I'll evaluate it differently - if A:B has the same distribution as C:D,
I'll just forget about reading anything into the San Diego poll and
continue just based on the email poll.
But this is the IETF, so it's NOT a vote; the purpose of the exercise is to
figure out whether there is a rough consensus present, or whether there is
a sizeable group of participants who agree that version 2 is better than
version 1.
A 51:49 outcome will decide nothing.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg