IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

"Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com> Fri, 28 March 2008 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1681B28C43A; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.440, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NytOweYb9V8P; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8E43A6893; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A837F3A69E2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmU0QspPn3ip for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902E43A6855 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,571,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="3353016"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2008 14:43:20 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2SIhKp3024674; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:43:20 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SIhK9C007035; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:43:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:43:19 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:44:17 -0400
Message-ID: <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A032BCAC0@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <2B752728-CE81-40B5-8E66-230D5E504D4F@thingmagic.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
Thread-Index: AciRAeIaIPlR6bZhR5GYl9+JJW/0gQAARcnQ
From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 18:43:19.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[975FDA70:01C89103]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2186; t=1206729800; x=1207593800; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20<wbeebee@cisco.co m> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20IETF=20Last=20Call=20for=20two=20IPR=20 WG=20Dcouments |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Margaret=20Wasserman=22=20<margaret@thingmagic.co m>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Ray=20Pelletier=22=20<rpell etier@isoc.org>; bh=LO6h6LN8rQFDnS0PQ4N9JIKO6pdVtsD8BBU0bvog9gA=; b=MSo1W0lTqcKN1ciUeqKjCqUW1tDOyU9GFQMQR/4Yfz/Kjb0rsMWDa5Wo2p V/YmSAYVkXPJtamj5IzE/+bxW+N7j/ckfLpvqwVkH1BQrWYiBDgAqHj93QWI z94ui1+xEi;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I would think that any license for RFC code should meet two
requirements:
1) It should be usable by anyone in the open source community
(compatible 
   with any open source/free software license).
2) It should be usable by anyone in any corporation who sells a closed 
   source product.

That way, we can ensure interoperability between open source and closed
source 
implementations.  Note that these requirements greatly constrain the
form that the
license should take.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
To: Ray Pelletier
Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments


Ray Pelletier wrote:
> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in 
> September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software 
> done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time 
> thinking of code contributed by IETF volunteers.  See:  http:// 
> trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html
>
> Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these documents 
> would require a different treatment?


Disclaimer:  IANAL, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding  
something about the license you referenced, but...

It seems to me that the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0", while  
fine for the source code to IETF tools, places more restrictions and  
more burden on someone who uses the code than we would want to place  
on someone who uses a MIB, XML schema or other "code" from our RFCs.

For example, the license places an obligation on someone using the  
source code to distribute copies of the original source code with any  
products they distribute.  Effectively, this means that anyone who  
distributes products based on MIBs, XML schemas or other "code" from  
RFCs would need to put up a partial RFC repository.  Why would we  
want that?

Margaret

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email