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

List of code cases / Instructions from San Diego (Re: Suggested text for text vs code)



--On onsdag, desember 06, 2006 10:47:57 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> 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.


Actually, the instructions from San Diego were (quoting from the minutes):


Stefan Wenger: Why not both in the draft?
JK: Do both as appropriate (use rules by default but can mark if no clear)
TH: Both case: If somebody didn't put something in that matched the rules
and didn't mark it then it isn't code.
JH: thinks both s a good thing. Avoids judgment call on borderline cases.
Only have to maintain the rules.. can put in code markers (as an author)
Concensus to go with both.


The "list of decisions to be confirmed" says:


What's the appropriate definition for "code" vs "non-code"? 3 alternatives
- Markers in the text: 1
- Rules to apply: 0
- Hybrid approach: Rules, with markers that can be used if desired: 17

When I was there, I interpreted this as "maintain a document with a set of rules about what is considered code" (initial set would be in the RFC). So if the initial set included DTDs but excluded RelaxNG, the first RFC to use it would use markers, but it would be included in the list in a later version.

But that's not 100% clear from quotes above, so it's worth discussing.




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