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

ADMIN: Dead horse beating is not on-topic (Re: Sample code)



Simon,

you have raised your argument. The WG has declared consensus otherwise.

Please stop wasting the bandwidth on the list; save your breath for IETF Last Call
(if you REALLY want to have all the arguments repeated once more).


                   Harald


Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:

The
current IETF license is an example of such a license (fixed by
incoming+outgoing though).  There has been source code examples in RFCs
with nasty licenses; if I recall correctly, some does not even permit
redistribution.

Further, I think the point is that it happens often that the copyright
holder on some code haven't released code under IETF's licenses, and it
is useful to include the code in an RFC. The current situation works
against the IETF's goal of facilitating wide implementations of
standards. This situation is bad, and your suggested solution isn't
realistic.
Why not? We've just done it (twice) for a draft I reviewed.

Which drafts was that? In the latest example that Russ asked the IPR WG about, draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-ldpc, after discussions, I was told the solution will be to remove code from the document.

It would only fail in the case of an uncooperative author, and in that
case we're stuck anyway.

No, that's missing the point. In draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-ldpc and the base64 draft, external copyright owners own the copyright on code that is useful to include in the document. To be over-precise: it is useful for the _IETF_, it is not necessarily useful for the copyright owner.

In the cases where the copyright owner(s)

  1) can't be identified or reached,
  2) is unwilling to re-license the work,
  3) is never approached to resolve the issue

it can still happen that it is useful for the IETF to be able to include
code.  The code may be licensed under a widely permissible license.
Still, given how the IETF rules work now (and in the future too), this
is impossible.

The requirement to not include external copyright notice has been
violated several times in RFCs, and I haven't seen an argument that the
requirement is more important than allowing the IETF to work better.  It
makes it impossible to include freely licensed code that would help
documents.  I think the policy should be modified here.

/Simon

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



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