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

[Black_David at emc.com]

Trying again with improved text:

  To the extent reasonably possible, the IETF Trust should
  preserve copyright notices that accompany code and encourage
  acknowledgement of code authors in published RFCs and other
  IETF documents.

I substituted "encourage" for "ensure" as I think that goes to
the heart of Ted's concern.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:03 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: hardie at qualcomm.com; ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: 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