RE: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

> I fail to see the harm in requiring folks redistributing modified
> standards
> documents to 1) notify the IETF that they're doing so 2) permit the IETF
> to
> use the text and then make further modifications as part of future
> standards work.

These objectives can be accomplished easily by licensing IETF documents
under an appropriate reciprocal open source license. For example, look at
sections 1(c) and 6 of the Open Software License (OSL version 2.1,
http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php). Modifications of IETF documents
would be allowed, subject to reasonable reciprocity and other conditions
that would help IETF and its "customers" to recognize non-standard
implementations and protect everyone against patent lawsuits relating to the
standards. (See, e.g., OSL section 10.)

This is *not* incompatible with applying an IETF trademark only to the
official IETF versions of the documents. (See OSL section 4.) 

The OSL is but one of several reciprocal open source licenses that IETF
could use.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  ●  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of “Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom 
               and Intellectual Property Law” (Prentice Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Bill Sommerfeld> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:06 PM
> To: Matthew Garrett
> Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt
> 
> On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 21:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
> > Why is this a concern? There is currently nothing preventing 1000
> > different documents from claiming to define any given standard. It would
> > make more sense to ensure that only one document can claim to be the
> > IETF standard for a given protocol. Once that's possible, there's no
> > harm in allowing standards documents to be modified as much as people
> > desire.
> 
> I fail to see the harm in requiring folks redistributing modified
> standards
> documents to 1) notify the IETF that they're doing so 2) permit the IETF
> to
> use the text and then make further modifications as part of future
> standards work.
> 
> 						- Bill
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg