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

[Black_David at emc.com]

Section 6.5 is mostly about avoidance of additional licenses -
the word "copyright" seems to have snuck in there and ought to
be expunged (IMHO).   Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon at josefsson.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:24 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com; hardie at qualcomm.com; ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Section 6.3: vague s/w 
> licensing guidance
> 
> 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