Re: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Dave Taht <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 2:52 PM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 12/23/16 12:12 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> "open source != BSD". There are better licenses out there - notably
>> apache 2.0 is pretty clear, legally, in places where BSD is not. I am
>> also under the impression that GPLv2 has an implicit patent grant
>> (which would be a real boon in clearing some matters up long before it
>> would ever become an issue).
>>
>> But IANAL. Have you taken this proposed policy up with OSI?
>>
>> https://opensource.org/
> The statement addresses the use of and obligations of contributors to
> repositories. It does not, nor does it intend to change the licensing
> terms of contributions, present in bcp 78,79 and the TLP.

The non-answer seems to be that OSI has not been consulted.

>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM, IESG Secretary <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org