Subject: RE: Comments to WG meeting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:27:51 -0400

Don, 

> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, [email-masked] wrote:
> > There is a related issue, in that if code goes under a license such as
> > the GPL and gets modified, it may not be possible to put the
modifications
> > back into the IETF to revise the RFC.  To deal with this, I suggest
> > instructing the IETF Trust that:
> > - RFC code excerpts should be free software (e.g., BSD license) that
> > 	can be used for any purpose.
> > - Modifications to RFC code excerpts should continue to be free 
> > 	software to the extent legally possible.
> > For open source, I can see how to achieve that - the IETF free
> > software license for RFC code excerpts would say that if the source
> > code containing the modified RFC excerpt is publicly redistributed,
> > then the IETF free software license applies to the modified RFC code
> > excerpt (and only to that excerpt, as the "derived work") in the
> > redistributed code.
> 
> This has the unfortunate side effect of likely making it GPL (and
> other copyleft license) incompatible unless it was very carefully
> worded,[1] since it would appear to form some sort of a copyleft.

I would hope not, because the BSD license is GPL compatible, and
the condition would be that as a consequence of accepting code under
a BSD-like license, one agrees to license modifications to that code
(and only that code) under a BSD-like license.  I agree with your
primary concern, namely that whatever we do needs to be compatible
with GPL and other commonly used copyleft licenses, and that should
be part of what we tell the IETF Trust.
 
> Would it be enough if outbound was MIT/Expat licensed with a strong
> suggestion to contribute changes back to the standards process? This
> would enable people to use the code in any implementation, and also
> remind everyone that they should participate in the standards process.

At a high level, we agree on goals, and I suggest leaving it to the
expert lawyers to work out the methods - that was my reason for using
the words "should" and "to the extent legally possible" in the bullet
of proposed guidance to the IETF Trust.  My concern about the strong
suggestion you propose is that if many hands have touched the code
chasing down "everyone" to ensure that the result can go back into
the standards process becomes difficult to impossible (IETF should not
accept GPL on material inbound to the standards process for obvious
reasons).  If what you propose is the most that's legally possible,
I can live with it as a fallback, but I'd prefer a structure where
the IETF unambiguously has the legal rights to re-use modified RFC code
excerpts.

> > I strongly believe that the consequences for those examples need to
> > be understood by the WG as part of making the decision. I need to go
> > back and look at them in my "copious spare time" ...
> 
> I agree. While it's quite likely that the process will result in
> something that I'm not completely happy with,[2] it would be really
> sad if a decision was reached without understanding exactly the
> results of that decision.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:39:26 -0400

The discussed agreement on code handling was that code excerpts can 
be used and modified without limiitation.
It seems to me that if we say that we don't have to worry about 
specific licensing.
And while I would like to be able to get proposed changes from people 
who want to bring them to us, I don't think it is fruitful or 
consistent with "used and modified without limitation" to try to 
write a specific license about returning changes.

It seems to me that simplicity trumps corner cases in this regard.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Bede B. McCall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:52:24 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:39:26 -0400
   From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>

Provided code authors (and their employers) are OK with others reusing
their code in new applications, you're absolutely right.  You only run
into problems when this isn't so:  in some circumstances, authors can
become reluctant to supply running code.  In such cases, it can become
hard to deliver reusable, open source reference implementations.

A fallback position is to restrict the allowable modification of
published code to implementations of the specification, and encourage
submitters to explicitly permit broader use of their work wherever
possible.  Clearly this is less desirable, but in my very limited
experience it has seemed less likely to antagonize corporate patent
attorneys and improves the chances you'll get cooperation with open
source reference implementations.

In any case, I think it would be best to recommend a policy allowing
unrestricted reuse of published code, recommending the fallback policy
restrictions only as a way to address specific IPR concerns when they
arise.

   [...]

Agreed.

--Bede McCall

---

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:28:41 -0700

[grouping replies here]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, [email-masked] wrote:
> I would hope not, because the BSD license is GPL compatible, and the
> condition would be that as a consequence of accepting code under a
> BSD-like license, one agrees to license modifications to that code
> (and only that code) under a BSD-like license.

That's actually not the case for the BSD license; it doesn't require
you to license modifications under the BSD. (That is common practice,
though.) [But since we agree on the goals, it's possible I may be
misunderstanding you.]

> I'd prefer a structure where the IETF unambiguously has the legal
> rights to re-use modified RFC code excerpts.

AFAICT, the only way to do that is with some kind of copyleft license,
which has the practical problems with GPL compatibility above.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Bede B. McCall wrote:
> published code to implementations of the specification, and
> encourage submitters to explicitly permit broader use of their work
> wherever possible.

Unfortunatly, this restriction also makes it impossible to incorporate
this code into GPLed implementations (or implementations that link to
GPLed libraries) as it restricts the use of the code to
implementations.

> Clearly this is less desirable, but in my very limited experience it
> has seemed less likely to antagonize corporate patent attorneys and
> improves the chances you'll get cooperation with open source
> reference implementations.

I think if we couch the requirement for code excerpts with the
advantages of allowing other people to use the code we can provide
enough advantages to sway those weighing the advice of the coporate
attorneys.

> restrictions only as a way to address specific IPR concerns when they

I agree that the unrestricted policy is the best way, but the
restricted policy won't be compatible with the goals of maximal
reusability.

Don Armstrong

-- 
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators.  They'll run almost
anything.  And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into
the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
 -- Jeff Dege, [email-masked]

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:33:07 -0700

> source reference implementations.

There's a small trap in the wording here. A patent license *restricted to
implementations of the specification* is not quite the same as a license *to
patent claims necessary to practice a specification*.

The first alternative (depending upon how worded) may prohibit the creation
of derivative works or, phrased even more tragically, prohibit people from
improving upon an earlier specification when the world changes. This is
incompatible with any open source license.

The second alternative leaves it for the future to worry about the need for
patent claims beyond the specific claims necessary to practice the original
specification. There are no restrictions or limitations on the creation of
derivative works other than what due diligence and proper software
development procedures would suggest at the time. Meanwhile, patent owners
can craft their claims to capture applications external to the
specification--as can anyone else--in a spirit of inventiveness that the
patent system and industry standards are supposed to encourage.

This allows for compromise between those patent owners who want to encourage
a specific standard and those patent users who demand freedom to create
derivative works. The future effects of other patent claims are left for the
future to determine as software evolves. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
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: Bede B. McCall [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Comments to WG meeting
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:36:53 +0200

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> The discussed agreement on code handling was that code excerpts can be 
> used and modified without limiitation.
> It seems to me that if we say that we don't have to worry about specific 
> licensing.
> who want to bring them to us, I don't think it is fruitful or consistent 
> with "used and modified without limitation" to try to write a specific 
> license about returning changes.
> 

This made me wonder whether we haven't indeed been trying to
over-engineer this for some time.

We want people to be able to use and modify code extracts
and we want to be able to recuperate the modified code
for future RFC updates.

If the code say x=y+2 and Simon modifies it to x=y+3, he
can give it back to the IETF, and independently stick it in
a module he releases under the OSS license of his choice.
Two independent actions. We just need to write a general
IETF copyright policy that allows him to do both.

Anyone further down the OSS tree can do the same: take x=y+2
and modify it to x=y+4, give that back to the IETF, and then
incorporate it in the OSS code after removing Simon's code.

This is never going to end up in court anyway, so why make it hard?

    Brian