RE: Suggested text for text vs code

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington at comcast.net>]

Hi Larry,

This sounds similar to the reasoning I have for opposing
author-specific, and especially viral, licensing in IETF documents. 

I don't want WGs and companies trying to implement standards to be
forced to waste time trying to divine which piece of a document has a
author-specific (possibly viral) license associated with it, and I
certainly do not want contribution of a code snippet to allow the
author of that snippet to impose viral licensing for the whole IETF
document. 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:33 PM
> To: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Suggested text for text vs code
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This confusion is why I keep insisting people should license 
> "original works
> of authorship" to IETF for open standards rather than some 
> imprecise IETF
> invention purporting to distinguish between text and code. 
> (See [1] and
> [2].)
> 
> It is a waste of time to change code (for whatever open source or
> proprietary reason!) embodying an IETF standard and then not 
> be able to
> change the IETF-published text that explains that code. Placing this
> unnecessary burden on recipients of IETF's open standards 
> documentation is a
> penalty that serves no valid purpose yet identified and 
> endorsed by this WG.
> 
> 
> When any of us give our copyrighted (and perhaps patented) 
> works to IETF in
> collaboration with others for the creation of industry standards, we
> shouldn't want people sitting around in working groups trying 
> to divine what
> the difference is between code and text in IETF draft 
> specifications, and
> then waste more time documenting such hair-splitting in the
published
> official IETF specifications themselves, and even more time within
the
> companies that implement those specifications trying to 
> decide what they can
> use and what they can't.
> 
> To the extent that this suggestion to distinguish code from 
> text came up for
> a vote before, but is still pending, I vote -1. 
> 
> /Larry Rosen
> 
> [1] 17 USC 102, first sentence, at
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_000
> 00102----000-.
> html.
> 
> [2] AFL 3.0, first sentence, at www.rosenlaw.com/AFL3.0.htm. 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon at josefsson.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:53 AM
> > To: Joel M. Halpern
> > Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Suggested text for text vs code
> > 
> > "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