Subject: Re: IESG Response to Copyright appeal

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:48:00 +0700

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ietf-announce/message/167

> In doing this, you leave the ISOC copyright there, which asserts that the
> ISOC has your permission to publish the document in the RFC archive, and
> protects it from unauthorized modifications or claims. Doing so, according
> to our counsel '...is as close to a "contribution to the public" that we
> can get'.

Dear honest lawyers, counsels, et. al.:

May I know, how close to a "contribution to the public"; the GNU Free 
Documentation License is? See also 
         http://gnux.vlsm.org/copyleft/fdl.txt

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
--- The Kappa likes getting cucumber --- Budum... Budum...

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:30:35 -0400

>          http://gnux.vlsm.org/copyleft/fdl.txt

Not very.  At least it's not as viral as the GPL, and they don't
require you (in section 3) to *personally* distribute sources for
3 years if you ship binaries of GPL programs (which irked me no end
when building installable packages for AIX - even though I made *no*
source changes, I asked (and was told) that just pointing at ftp.gnu.org
for the source wasn't acceptable).  You only need take "prudent steps"
for one year to ensure the place you point people stays there.

Remember that the GNU crowd has an agenda, and their licensing is
written to enforce that agenda.

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:53:14 +0700

> Not very.

From the preamble:

  "The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or 
   other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure 
   everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or 
   without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.  
   Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher 
   a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered 
   responsible for modifications made by others."

I have no problem with that. However; since I am not a lawyer, I am
just wondering if there are hidden catches that I am not aware of.

> At least it's not as viral as the GPL, and they don't

Section 3 of GPL http://gnux.vlsm.org/copyleft/gpl.txt has three
options, "a" (accompany with source code) , "b" (three years commitment
to distribute), and "c" (providing pointers). So, what is the problem 
to choose one of them?

regards,

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 02:13:23 -0400

> to distribute), and "c" (providing pointers). So, what is the problem 

The problem is that now I have a directory on the server that has a bunch
of *.tar.gz files identical to the ones on ftp.gnu.org, that are *only*
there because the GNU people said I have to distribute source, and that
the fact that there are probably 327 GNU mirrors that are more likely
to be there 3 years from now than the server I set up is irrelevant to
the GNU people.  And having distributed anything, I now get to keep track
of *every package*, and whenever I remove that package (for instance,
if I package GNU Make 3.78 to replace 3.77) I have to keep BOTH .tar.gz's.
I've now got a make-3.77.tar.gz that I'm stuck with for another 2 1/2 years,
a make-3.78.tar.gz I;'m stuck with for a bit longer, a make-3.78.1.tar.gz,
and I can't get rid of make-3.79.1.tar.gz for  3 years still.  If I had
built a 3.79 I'd be stuck with that one too...

The problem is that when you take *that* stuff into account, I've spent
(or have committed to spending) *more* time trying to comply with the
GPL than I have actually making useful things available.  I quit after
building only about 1/3 of the install kits for AIX that I could have,
mostly because I was digging a maintenance issue.  

The problem is that people won't get the benefit of the other tools,
just because I can't say "as built from source available at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/foobar/foobar-1.3.tar.gz".  So in this case,
the GPL has worked against its intent - rather than set up a possible
non-compliance 2 years from now because I may not *be* there anymore,
I've respected the GPL's wishes by not distributing software.

Anyhow, this has gotten far enough afield, and it's late...

				Valdis Kletnieks

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 09:48:57 +0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> GPL than I have actually making useful things available.  

OK, I am convinced that GPL creates problems, especially
for the maintainers. Now, back to the original issue that
I have raised, i.e. IESG's assertions on:

   Doing so, according to our counsel '...is as close to a 
   "contribution to the public" that we can get'.

Is that really true that the BCP-9 text was developed by the 
IETF (not ISOC!) lawyers specifically to deal with IETF documents?
Furthermore,  (AFAIK) haven't these counsels also recommended 
that "Foo of Conduct" modification? I just put the GDL as a 
comparison.

regards,