RE: Incoming - software licenses

[Black_David at emc.com]

Brian

I think I agree with this line of thought - here are some more
detailed ideas to move this along:

- Whatever IETF exception process exists for restrictive software
	licenses needs to be a process of last resort.
- As input to the process, we should require the requester of the
	exception to demonstrate that the code cannot be obtained
	under conditions that allow the copyright grant required
	by the -incoming draft. (i.e., the default hypothesis is
	that the code can be obtained under suitable conditions,
	and it is the requester's responsibility to disprove this
	hypothesis).
- The requester should not expect IETF to act on his/her behalf
	in attempting to obtain the code or assisting with obtaining
	the code.
- Absent a convincing demonstration that the code is not available
	under conditions that permit the copyright grant, the
	exception should be denied.

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:42 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: simon at josefsson.org; ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Incoming - software licenses
> 
> On 2007-07-18 15:18, Black_David at emc.com wrote:
> > Brian, 
> > 
> >> On 2007-07-17 18:24, Black_David at emc.com wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> A starting point may be that some sort of exception and official
> >>> approval could be required for code with a license that does not
> >>> permit the copyright grant to the IETF Trust required by the
> >>> -incoming document.  
> >> My starting point would be to tell the person attempting to
> >> contribute the code to go find its original author and have
> >> them grant the necessary license to the IETF, independently of
> >> whatever other license they have put it under, and repeat until
> >> done. I think making exceptions possible will produce a world
> >> of hurt.
> > 
> > That's a fine starting point, but (IMHO) it's already insufficient,
> > because:
> > 
> > Exceptions are already happening - cf. Simon's example of LGPL
> > Base64 code, and I believe Simon has already brought a number of
> > other examples to our attention.  Ignoring this issue is a decision
> > that the existing exception process(es) are what we want.  I'd
> > prefer that to be a conscious decision rather than something that
> > happens by default.
> > 
> > Also, there needs to be a warning somewhere for those without
> > sensitive legal antennae that the copyright provisions in -incoming
> > conflict with copyleft software licenses.  The warning could be in
> > an FAQ or some sort of notice in the submission process and/or tool;
> > it doesn't have to be in the -incoming document itself.  My concern
> > here is that I suspect that the members of this mailing list are
> > among the minority that understand the conflict between copyleft
> > and the -incoming copyright grant.  
> 
> But I think if we include that warning we have to offer a work-around
> which doesn't lead to exception handling in *our* process - put the
> onus for the work-around on the person who wrote the code and decided
> to encumber it with copyleft in the first place.
> 
>      Brian
> 
> 

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