Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

We (the IETF) had this discussion regarding our copyright rules.  We 
discussed the tension with reuse by open source documentation where the 
community could not commit to copying things without changing them  (If 
they could make that promise, there would be no problem as such copying 
is already permitted.)

So either the open source communities needs to be able to change the 
text, or it does not need to be able to change the text, or it has 
created rules for itself where it needs to be permitted to change the 
text even though it does not actually want to change.

The first, not changing the text, is already covered.
The second, changing the text, is not something I or the IETF community 
support.
The third would seem to be a different problem, and asking the IEtF to 
change its rules for that seems a VERY strange answer.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/28/16 3:59 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01/28/2016 03:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I think that this is a very bad idea.  The point of doing the work
>> to create an RFC is to reach agreements on what the words should
>> be. Saying after that "oh, but anyone else can change these words
>> any way they want" just does not work for me.
>
> The main issue here is not that people would like to change what the
> RFC says. It's quite the opposite in fact. People would like to be
> able to reuse parts the RFC text in other contexts (e.g. documentation
> for a piece of software that relies on several RFCs). Without
> additional rights, they would have to paraphrase the content of RFCs,
> which would actually lead to more compatibility problems. Also, the
> proposed text already includes the condition "provided that no such
> derivative work shall be presented, displayed, or published in a
> manner that states or implies that it is part of this RFC or any other
> IETF Document". Given that, I'm not sure what the problem is.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 	Jean-Marc
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWqoEbAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9a1wH+wY6k2UP7iYQjLng6XQ79hgD
> W7pklezNzSXUlohTcUMK6s9n03fa1rK2jJcslDGgpO/qqzqdUDbEAlqqZhH2H+hc
> KXac5S6XVp56k0/QGPuyap9Ijshurs5ehvnYvBAuqcWAb9u9HaYlylZtH9/e482c
> Cretot8m5d2quZ1i3j23HccrfLiyve097OufY2sdgbzL1Xzu5qwcn/xJh27ccFtN
> 0Cbhigr7r6b8rNM/9VHSIF50shM2EuqULHBj+ABJbGfGIcWq4zRVJOsY0OqMaFcS
> 42y/974N/Admp6en1kITfdD6ZOn3jJpON6QOpaFRiGCiW3OsGs9AMCjZ+do4KM4=
> =WfO7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>