Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Sun, 30 March 2008 12:22 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 9A68B3A6CE8; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, 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 icTw6bTVFjJp; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43BD3A6CBB; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:22:43 -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 E82D93A6846 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:22:42 -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 M2uX1gAv73j2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179983A6CBB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s73602 (cpe-72-190-0-23.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.0.23]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1JfwYI28Eh-0008Au; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 08:22:27 -0400
Message-ID: <049801c89260$93aa0cd0$6401a8c0@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
References: <2B752728-CE81-40B5-8E66-230D5E504D4F@thingmagic.com><BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A032BCAC0@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com><87r6dtopy9.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <47EE921B.8060509@gmail.com> <877ifkfu86.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:21:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ACCEf8z7CC8nOgCoxL2HUHLii9vfIz0+w1Rh YSCRdFR3IKo1rJOpbHEFK45uF8Pzkm0EoMfr6x2E28D4aewrq4 AG+mWurXiL0VszXHK8fH7TvnIrtj0gTvXHJ5k7PtSs=
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, ietf@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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, Simon,

> If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
> requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure?  If
> that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>
> Using the NPOSL3.0 as the software license, which I read Ray's message
> to imply was being considered, would be one way to prevent Debian from
> using the code.

OK so far...

> I would agree that the references should be for a specific version of
> the documents, if that is your point.

OK, I unsubscribed to IPR two or three years ago (or maybe it was two or 
three PR-actions ago, I can't remember which), so maybe I'm really confused, 
but

- I would disagree with referring to a specific version of these documents, 
because tellng the trust "it has to be X-1.0-compatible" will just frustrate 
all of us when there's an X-1.1 version, so then we get to have this 
conversation all over again - or else, we just trust the trust to do the 
right thing (which is what we're discussing now) - or am I misunderstanding?

- please, please, please do not try to craft precise guidance on 
ietf@ietf.org. We can't even get our own process BCPs right. If there is a 
new uber-software license developed thirty minutes after this draft is 
published as an RFC, I bet we would want the trust to look seriously at it, 
and maybe even do the right thing ("and please ignore our guidance if that 
helps you do the right thing").

I don't understand how we can have a trust that we can't trust to do the 
right thing at some level. The draft is pretty clear about our intentions.

Simon has said "there are land mines all over the place". I don't disagree. 
If it helps to add text that says "it's easy to make mistakes; if you make 
mistakes, please fix them as we find them", fine, but if we have to tell the 
trust that, we probably need a smarter trust more than we need specific 
guidance.

IMO.

Spencer 


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf