Re: Suggested text for text vs code

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> writes:

> 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.

Good!  Then my suggested text to be explicit about the separation of
licenses code should be non-controversial.

> 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.

That wouldn't result in a document that explains that we've made a
decision about separating licenses for text and code.  If I understand
correctly, Harald said there was consensus that there needs to be
different licenses for text and code.  (And I'm not disputing that
consensus...)  Explicitly reflecting that decision in the document
would be useful as a trail of what the WG has discussed and decided.

/Simon

>
> 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