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

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

That text sounds good to me.  Note that section 6.5 currently says some
rather opposite things wrt to additional copyright and license notices.
Replacing that text with your paragraph would be good.

/Simon

Black_David at emc.com writes:

> 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