Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 26 March 2008 20:17 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 0BEDC3A6BDB; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, 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 jBZlx2lwcNq1; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDB428C29D; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:17:01 -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 2611C3A6BE9; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:59 -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 CPwmilk1j5c7; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C8F3A6885; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wrk225.corp.jabber.com (dencfw1.jabber.com [207.182.164.5]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E430B40053; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:13:49 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <47EAAEA7.2020002@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:14:31 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
References: <20080324200545.D6E6328C3AE@core3.amsl.com> <47E9C36E.5080405@stpeter.im> <015EC8A6374CEA1B604116AD@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <015EC8A6374CEA1B604116AD@localhost>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, ipr-wg@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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0345615145=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre > <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: > >> Russ Housley wrote: >>> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a >>> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF >>> Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last >>> call. The Last Call announcements are attached. Please review and >>> comment. >> >> I've given these drafts a first reading. The following comments may >> represent a misunderstanding on my part, but I provide them in the >> interest of clarifying the meaning of these drafts. >> >> One concern I have is the distinction between text and code. Where and >> how is that line drawn? What about, for example, protocol examples (of >> which there are many in most RFCs)? Are they text or code? > > the -outgoing draft contains this text: > > IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly > processed by a computer. Examples of these include ABNF definitions, > XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values, > MIBs, ASN.1, or classical programming code. > > And, recognizing that it's impossible to come up with a closed list of such > items that is valid for all time: > > While it is up to the Trustees of the IETF Trust to determine the > best way of meeting this objective, two mechanisms are suggested here > that are believed to be helpful in documenting the intended grant to > readers and users of IETF contributions. > > Firstly, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should maintain, in a > suitable, easily accessible fashion, a list of common RFC components > which will be considered to be code. To start, this list should > include at least the items listed above. The Trustees of the IETF > Trust will add to this list as they deems suitable or as it is > directed by the IETF. > > Additionally, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should define a textual > representation to be included in an IETF contribution to indicate > that a portion of the document is considered by the authors (and > later the working group, and upon approval the IETF) to be code, and > to be subject to the permissions granted to use code. > > I don't think protocol examples are code - they're not written in a > parseable language. OTOH, if someone were to write protocol examples > using an ASCII representation of ITU-T's TTCN, that would probably be > code, and the IETF Trust should update their list to include that format. > >> Another concern is the limitation on copying of text. It seems quite >> reasonable for developers to include snippets of text in their programs >> (think literate programming), and under many code licenses it is >> difficult if not impossible to separately license the code and any >> copied text when bundled together. >> >> Regarding the copying of text, Section 4.4 of the outgoing draft says: >> >> There is no consensus at this time to permit the use of text from >> RFCs in contexts where the right to modify the text is required. The >> authors of IETF contributions may be able and willing to grant such >> rights independently of the rights they have granted to the IETF by >> making the contribution. >> >> But Section 6 of the incoming draft says: >> >> It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are >> not permitted in IETF Documents except in the case where such >> document is the product of a joint development effort between the >> IETF and another standards development organization or the document >> is a republication of the work of another standards development >> organization. Such exceptions must be approved on an individual >> basis by the IAB. >> >> So it's not clear to me how contributors could (easily) grant the right >> to modify text that is copied from an RFC -- unless they do so outside >> the Internet Standards Process (based, I suppose, on the rights retained >> by the contributors). However, it seems that each implementor would need >> to separately approach the contributors in order to do that (and how >> would they know that the contributors are approachable in that way if >> not through inclusion of some kind of notice in the relevant RFC -- and >> would such a notice comprise an "additional copyright notice" as >> described in Section 6 fo the incoming draft?). > > Exactly; this is no change from the current copying conditions for RFCs. > In fact, the code copying conditions are more permissive than the status > quo ante. > > A note claiming that "this text is also available from source X, check > copying conditions there" would not be a copyright notice. > I don't think "this text is also available under GFDL from source X" is > a copyright notice either; it's a license, not a copyright notice. OK, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure. >> Finally, the outbound draft merely provides recommendations regarding >> license text and other materials, final definition of which seems to be >> under the sole purview of the Trustees of the IETF Trust. However, the >> outbound draft does not specify if the work of the Trustees shall be >> subject to review by the IPR WG, the IESG, the IAB, or the IETF >> community (e.g., in the form of an Internet-Draft) before it takes >> effect. > > No, it does not. I'd like someone from the Trust to speak up about their > thoughts about suitable review processes. Yes, that would be appreciated. > Note that the IPR WG can't do the review going forward; once these > documents are approved (if they are), I intend to ask that the group is > shut down. That seems sensible. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Russ Housley
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Sam Hartman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Olaf Kolkman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Leslie Daigle
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Olaf Kolkman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- RE: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Lawrence Rosen
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Scott O. Bradner
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Ray Pelletier
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments SM
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Margaret Wasserman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- RE: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- RE: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Lawrence Rosen
- RE: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments michael.dillon
- -outbound copying rights grant Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Paul Hoffman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Paul Hoffman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Frank Ellermann
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Randy Presuhn
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments David Morris
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Olaf Kolkman
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Ray Pelletier
- Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments Simon Josefsson