Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

I do not understand the problem you want addressed.  The way this is 
worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or 
becomes.  The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code 
segments.  That's what we ask the trust to do. Further in line.

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Regarding -outbound section 4.3:
> 
...
> 
>    As such, the rough consensus is that the IETF Trust is to grant
>    rights such that code components of IETF contributions can be
>    extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any way desired.  To
>    enable the broadest possible extraction, modification and usage, the
>    IETF Trust should avoid adding software license obligations beyond
>    those already present in a contribution.  The granted rights to
>    extract, modify and use code should allow creation of derived works
>    outside the IETF that may carry additional license obligations.
This says that the trust is to grant rights so that code can be 
extracted, modified, and used by ANYONE.  I.e. our grant will not place 
restrictions on people.

> ...
> 
> I believe the intention here is good, but it leaves the IETF Trust with
> no guidelines on how to write the license declaration that is likely to
> work well in practice with actual products.  There are no reference to
> what "open source" means in this context, and references to "free
> software" is missing.
> 
> I believe it would be a complete failure if code-like portions of RFCs
> cannot be included into open source and free software products such as
> the Debian project.
If we grant anyone the right to use the code any way they want, which 
means that we specifically can not require preservation of notices or 
anything else, how could it fail to meet the requirements of the 
specific cases you list?

> 
> To give the Trust something concrete to work with I propose to add the
> following:
> 
>   To make sure the granted rights are usable in practice, they need to
>   at least meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition [OSD],
>   the Free Software Definition [FSD], and the Debian Free Software
>   Guidelines [DFSG].
> 
> For those who fear that this will lead to complexity: releasing
> something that is compatible with those requirements is simple.  The
> modified BSD license meets those requirements, as does a number of other
> methods, including releasing the work into the public domain.
My concern is not complexity.  Referencing the specific documents is 
more restrictive than what the working group recommended.  I don't see 
why that would help anything.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf