Restriction on the right to modify (Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-02.txt)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

Frank,

--On 24. januar 2007 16:29 +0100 Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> 
wrote:

> > | While there has been discussion of restricting the rights to
> > | make such modifications in some way, the rough consensus is
> > | that such restrictions are likely a bad idea, and are certainly
> > | very complex to define.
>
> Another dubious "rough consensus", and not something I recall.  The
> discussion was about *allowing* a kind of "share alike" restriction,
> and a poll resulted in a "clear tendency" to not offer that option.
>
> The poll didn't examine the reasons like "certainly very complex to
> define" or "likely a bad idea".   In the CC model it's not complex
> to add a "share alike" to a given "CC-BY" resulting in "CC-BY-SA".
>
> A simple fix could be to remove the complete statement, and let the
> WG Chairs say something about the discussion in the questionnaire.

As chair, I've observed a number of people state that they would like to 
have some kind of restriction, and in every case, someone else has objected 
to that restriction.
In the few cases (like "you shouldn't use IETF code to implement a 
noninteroperable protocol and claim that it's the IETF protocol") where 
everyone agrees that it's a Bad Thing to do so, the discussion I've seen is 
that the cost of trying to write such a restriction is much greater than 
the benefit.

WRT the specific instance of "share-alike": Everything I've seen indicates 
that mandating share-alike for modifications to IETF code would be 
massively controversial.

                Harald



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg