Re: Restriction on the right to modify

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
> 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.

Yes, but the opposite was of course also true, everytime there was no 
restriction somebody proposed a restriction.  That's probably why you
started two polls about the issue until it was settled.

> Everything I've seen indicates that mandating share-alike for
> modifications to IETF code would be massively controversial.

My objection wasn't that you shouldn't try to determine some consensus,
my objection was that the draft tries this giving "bad idea" and "too
complex" as reasons.  If it would state that a "share alike" option
was dropped as "controversial" it would be okay.

Drafts talking about their own consensus are odd, that gives us three
kinds of consensus:  The alleged consensus in a draft, the consensus
in the questionnaire sent to the draft tracker, and finally an IETF
consensus determined in the last call.  If it's approved and somebody
would appeal it claiming that the rough consensus was too rough it's
not more obvious which consensus (s)he's talking about.

IMO "consensus" is a magic word, it's for WG Chairs, not for drafts.

And here it's merely a matter of wordsmithing, of course there was a
"clear tendency" in your poll.  Maybe it's only me, but when I read 
the first "there is consensus" in the draft I thought it's a paradox,
a crystal ball, or both.  And that first occurence isn't about the
optional "share alike" restriction.

Frank



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