Re: FW: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:20 AM, IETF Chair <[e-mail]> wrote:

> With the holidays over, this is a re-send of the request to
> review the suggested license file.
>
> Jari
>
>
Thanks for the reminder.  My only question is with this text:

"Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process."

At least in the Github repositories used by RTCWEB and ACME, work often
proceeds by someone raising an issue, tracking comments on it, and then
generating a pull request.  I believe this flow is covered by the text
above because issues are a type of comment.  It might be slightly clearer,
though, if raising an issue were explicitly called out; it might be
otherwise argued that comments on issues were covered by the issues
themselves were not.

This is likely just an abundance of caution, but I see no harm in
explicitly including issue in the list above, hence the suggestion.

regards,

Ted


> ----
>
> > The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
> > repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
> > we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
> > of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
> > more popular in the future.
> >
> > As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
> > in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
> > integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
> > an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
> > have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
> > usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
> > placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
> > some additional information that is already present in these files in
> > many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
> > contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
> > they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
> > copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
> >
> > We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
> > from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
> > following text.
> >
> > We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
> > 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
> > message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
> > is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG ([e-mail]) by
> 2017-01-17.
> >
> > The IESG
> >
> > ——
> >
> > This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
> > Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
> > to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
> > policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
> > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
> > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
> > Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
> > (http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
> >
> > Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
> > repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
> > agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
> > including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
> > components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
> > Contributions.
> >
>
>