Subject: Example of RFC 3978 incompatible license in draft-eastlake-sha2-02.txt

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:56:21 +0200

There has been an argument from the IAB that the "GNU Public License"
(sic) is incompatible with the RFC 3978 license, and thus code
licensed under that license cannot be part of a document.  I'm told
this IAB notice should be sent to this WG, but I haven't seen it yet.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that recently approved
draft-eastlake-sha2-02 contains this license:

1.1 License

   Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted
   provided that this document is identified in all material mentioning
   or referencing this software. Royalty free license is also granted to
   make and use derivative works provided that such works are identified
   as derived from this work.

   The authors make no representations concerning either the
   merchantability of this software or the suitability of this software
   for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
   implied warranty of any kind.

As far as I can tell, this is incompatible with the RFC 3978 license.

The license also seems incompatible with the notion that code excerpts
should be modifiable, without additional restrictions.

Personally, I believe the license above, and the (L)GPL, are fine for
use on code in RFCs.

Are there any thoughts on license incompatibilities from the IPR WG?

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:11:43 +0200 (CEST)

The license below appear to require acknowledgements of the source:

    provided that this document is identified in all material mentioning
or referencing this software

There is no such requirement in the release to third parties of code in
RFC 3978 3.3.a.(E), thus the above requirement places an additional
restriction on a derived work from the document.  The restriction is
similar to the one in the LGPL: you may use the code provided that you
follow certain rules that goes beyond those specified by RFC 3978.

Again, I believe clauses like this are fine -- they help get the RFC
implemented, and thus further the goal of the IETF.  But if the IAB claim
that the "GNU Public License" (sic) is incompatible with RFC 3978, then in
fairness, so should other RFC 3978 incompatible licenses be regarded.

/Simon

> Hi Simon,
>
> Can you point out the specific clauses in the two licenses that you
> think are incompatible?
>
> dbh
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:56 AM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Example of RFC 3978 incompatible license
>> indraft-eastlake-sha2-02.txt
>>

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:55:34 -0400

Hi Simon,

dbh

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:15:39 +0200

But it doesn't restrict the right to make use of code extracts;
I personally don't see that as an incompatibility. And it doesn't
contain an additional copyright statement, which 3978 specifically
forbids.

     Brian "IANAL" Carpenter

Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>There has been an argument from the IAB that the "GNU Public
>>
>>License"
>>
>>>this IAB notice should be sent to this WG, but I haven't seen it
>>
>>yet.
>>
>>>As far as I can tell, this is incompatible with the RFC 3978
>>
>>license.
>>
>>>The license also seems incompatible with the notion that code
>>
>>excerpts
>>
>>>Personally, I believe the license above, and the (L)GPL, are fine
>>
>>for
>>
>>>use on code in RFCs.
>>>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:41:36 +0200

> But it doesn't restrict the right to make use of code extracts;

It does: it restricts you from using code in any way you like,
including things that are permitted by the RFC 3978 license.

If a license A require that you place no additional restrictions on a
piece of code, you cannot combine it with a license B that require
that "this document is identified in all material mentioning or
referencing this software".  Here we have A=GPL B=license below.

This is a similar problem that the IAB found with the LGPL code in
rfc3548bis.

> I personally don't see that as an incompatibility.

Technically speaking, the licenses are incompatible.  The situation is
similar to the problem with the old BSD license, see:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

> And it doesn't contain an additional copyright statement, which 3978
> specifically forbids.

No disagreement here.

/Simon