Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> As the author of the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 (NOSL 3.0),
> perhaps I can clear up some misconceptions about it.
> 
> * NOSL 3.0 is for software tools; it is not a standards license. It is not
> used as the outbound license for any code in RFCs, 

I understood Ray Pelletier to be suggesting that as a possibility, since
he said: "Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these
documents would require a different treatment?" Which I took to mean
that NOSL 3.0 might be applied to the code snippets contained in RFCs.

> and thus there is no
> obligation that I'm aware of to put up a "partial RFC repository" anywhere. 

Not yet. :)

> * NOSL 3.0 does not obligate someone merely "using" the source code or the
> software to distribute anything at all. 

However, the same does not apply to Derivative Works.

> * Source code must be made available by anyone who actually distributes the
> software or derivative works thereof to third parties. (The definition in
> NOSL 3.0 of "distribution" is important but not relevant to this thread.)
> 
> * Source code need not be distributed "with" products containing that
> software. Typically, distribution of source code is handled through separate
> links on websites, just as most open source software companies now
> distribute software and source code.
> 
> * Products that incorporate unmodified copies of NOSL 3.0 software tools
> rather than derivative works thereof can just inform customers to link to
> the IETF website itself for source code. That also serves as a way for IETF
> and its contributors to receive credit for writing that free and open source
> software in the first place.
> 
> * The reciprocity obligation for derivative works and patents in NOSL 3.0 is
> on purpose. Everyone is free to use those software tools for any purpose
> whatsoever, but improvements to them *that are distributed to third parties*
> must be returned to IETF for the potential benefit of other members of the
> IETF community. 

That all makes perfect sense for the code produced by the Tools Team.

> * As you may have seen in recent discussions about the proposed IETF IPR
> policies, one goal is to allow anyone to create and distribute products that
> embody IETF standards under any license whatsoever. Whatever the outbound
> license turns out to be for RFCs, it will presumably not dictate or limit
> the license terms for products embodying those RFCs. For that reason alone,
> NOSL 3.0 is not appropriate for RFC outbound licensing.

Agreed.

> Further information about NOSL 3.0 and related licenses, is at
> www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.pdf.  

Reading.

> For various reasons, AFL 3.0, also described in that paper, would perhaps be
> a more appropriate outbound license for code in RFCs, but that too is a
> topic for a potential separate thread.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

Attachment: smime.p7s