RE: Suggested text for text vs code

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

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

I don't know what you mean by "author-specific" licensing. 

So-called "viral" licenses (I prefer the term "reciprocal" as being less
associated with disease states), even though they are wonderful for
encouraging free software and discouraging free riders, are also
incompatible with open standards. That is because open standards must be
available for implementation in proprietary software also.

If someone here is proposing allowing reciprocal licenses for either IETF
contributions or IETF out-licensing, I vote -1 on that too.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David B Harrington [mailto:dbharrington at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:37 PM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Suggested text for text vs code
> 
> 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