[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Suggested text for text vs code



Agreed. Of course, since the contributor retains copyright, he or she
can grant additional rights independently of the IETF; but it's an IETF
decision whether any statement about that appears in an IETF document.

    Brian

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
My understanding of my instructions from San Diego was to be explicit in the section about code rights that these were distinct from text rights. And that I was to document that
a) the code rights applied to any sections of RFCs which were of the form X, Y, Z, W. A specific list of cases.
b) That the trust would define a way of marking portions of RFCs as code so that if there were other things that the WG concluded needed to be treated as code (such as a RelaxNG schema if I don't include that in the list above), the the working group can indicate that the code rights apply to that section as well.


I much prefer being explicit in the right place about what the rights apply to, rather than putting a general description up at the front.

Yours,
Joel

At 10:20 AM 12/5/2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:

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



_______________________________________________ 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