RE: Last Call for Comments on " Legal Provisions Related to IETFDocuments"

["Contreras, Jorge" <[e-mail]>]

Simon -- thanks for the speedy feedback!  Below are some responses: 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Simon Josefsson
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:38 AM
> To: Ed Juskevicius
> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Last Call for Comments on " Legal Provisions 
> Related to IETFDocuments"
> 
> Thanks for publishing a new version of the document.  There has been
> some regressions in this version compared to earlier versions.
> 
> #1:
> 
> The latest version of the IETF Legal Provisions adds a new 
> section 4.d.:
> 
>       d.  Attribution. In addition to the language required under the
>       BSD License, each Code Component must be clearly attributed to
>       IETF and identify the RFC or other IETF Document or IETF
>       Contribution from which it is taken.
> 
> That license condition is beyond what the BSD license requires.  That
> means the above license clause needs to be included in the 
> license text
> of every code copied from a RFC, since the requirement applies to all
> material derived from code extracted from an RFC.
> 
> It also means that code copied from an IETF document cannot be used as
> "BSD code", because the above restriction needs to be 
> preserved in every
> modified copy of the code.
> 
> This variation of the BSD license is original, and MAY be incompatible
> with some free software licenses; at least it does not appear to have
> been reviewed for compatibility by anyone familiar with free software
> licensing.
> 
> It is important to use an already widely reviewed free 
> software license
> instead of inventing new licenses!  There are plenty of 
> examples of bad
> things that happen if this advice isn't followed, see [1] [2] for two
> histories.
> 
> Explained in a different way, the above new addition is 
> against what the
> IETF has expressed in draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-07.txt:
> 
>    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.
> 
> The new clause 4.d. is incompatible with the expressed wish 
> of the IETF,
> in my reading.  The outbound-rights-07 document doesn't say anything
> about preserving attribution for code components.
> 
> The concern regarding code attribution was discussed in the IPR WG a
> long time ago, when people brought up similar ideas about requiring
> attributions.  As far as I could tell, no consensus developed, and
> consequently the document didn't say anything related to 
> attribution for
> code components.
> 
> Please remove section 4.d completely.

I understand the point.  Several participants at the IPR-WG meeting
requested this addition, but I would ask the list to reconsider in light
of your feedback.

> 
> #2:
> 
> There is another addition to section 4.c of the new document version:
> 
>        c.  License. Code Components are hereby licensed to each person
>        who wishes to receive such a license on the terms of the "BSD
>        License", as follows (in addition to any licenses granted with
>        respect to the text of such Code Components as they appear in
>        IETF Contributions or IETF Documents pursuant to Section 3
>        above):
> 
> The text inside the parenthesis is new.
> 
> The use of the word "in addition to" implies that the code components
> will NOT be strictly licensed only under the BSD license, but under a
> dual-license of the BSD license and the restrictive license 
> (for text in
> RFCs) in section 3 of the document.  That is likely what is intended
> too: code components should be possible to use just like text 
> from RFCs
> under the normal (section 3) IETF rules.
> 
> In a dual-license situation, to be able to use the code 
> component under
> only the BSD license, the license needs to grant you the right to drop
> one of the license texts for it.
> 
> This is the same problem as explained in my initial comment on this
> document, see #1 in:
> 
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5360
> 
> What is missing is text such as the following:
> 
>   The licensee can chose whether to use the BSD License or 
> the Section 3
>   rules when extracting this component.
> 
> Once a licensee has extracted a component under the BSD license, that
> version cannot later be used under the IETF section 3 rules.
> 
> Alternatively, you could adopt the suggestion I made in my initial
> comment: clearly say that licensee can use the BSD license as the ONLY
> license for extracted code components.  This would avoid much 
> confusion
> about which license applies to code components extracted from RFCs.
> 
> The text to add would be:
> 
>        To clarify, the entire license for Code Components is the above
>        BSD license, and if you use this license for a Code Component,
>        the license terms in section 3 does not apply to that material.

I agree that we should clarify:  the license under Section 3 is the ONLY
license applicable to extracted Code Components.  The other licenses
relate to the code-as-text in RFC and other documents.

> 
> #3:
> 
> The URL given for "common code components" doesn't work:
> www.ietf.org/trust/code.
> 
> Thanks,
> /Simon

That's just a placeholder.  The code components list has not changed
from the 7/18 version.  It will simply be moved to a URL that is
operable once this document is final.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg