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

Re: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w licensing guidance



below...

On 2007-07-18 20:04, Black_David at emc.com wrote:
The IETF Trust should preserve copyright notices that
accompany code and ensure that authors of code are
acknowledged in published RFCs and other IETF documents.

I think asking the Trust to ensure this is a bit odd.  What happens
if they discover that a published RFC does not have the correct
acknowledgement?  The RFC series is archival, and we don't want
to change that.  Are you suggesting that they be able to request
a new, obsoleting RFC be issued with the correct acknowledgement?
And who does this review for acknowledgement?  The Trust's
officers?

I think the IETF should be careful of correct acknowledgement
and should preserve copyright notices in cases where the
copyright notices are permitted (either by exception, as now,
or by some decision on what is  generally permitted), but
the review for this seems to me to belong to the parties submitting
the documents for publication and to the community as a whole,
rather than to the Trust.

Have I misunderstood your intent here?

I think we're in violent agreement. Copyright notices need to be preserved, and someone (need not be the IETF Trust) ought to be encouraging mention of the code authors in the Acknowledgements section of published RFCs. I understand that RFCs are archival documents that can't be changed once published.

Maybe weasel-word the 'should' with 'as far as possible'?

    Brian

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