Subject: RE: Comments to WG meeting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:18:20 -0400

Ok, that settles the issue for me.  I think we're left with
Don's strong suggestion to make changes available to the standards
process:

> 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.

As that appears to be the best that's possible, it's acceptable to me.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Comments to WG meeting
> 
> > > OTOH, perhaps Larry can settle this issue right now, as I respect
> > > his expertise on what licenses such as the GPL permit.  The question
> > > is essentially "would a BSD-like license carrying the additional
> > > condition that modifications to the licensed code be relicensed
> > > (at least to the IETF) under the same license be GPL-compatible?"
> > 
> Simon responded:
> > Having Larry answer that one would be fine, but if the answer is
> > anything but "No" I'd like to challenge it.
> > 
> > The free software community review licenses for compatibility
> > continuously, so this kind of question is not new.
> 
> I agree with Simon. This combination of reciprocity for IETF and
> permissiveness otherwise is not acceptable in an open source license.
> 
> /Larry Rosen
> 

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:48:35 -0400

My only concern here is that this is very close to directing the 
legal words rather than directing the intent.
I would prefer not to have to go study yet another license to try to 
decide if it said what I think we mean.
And I would rather not have to deduce several years from now what we 
meant from the specific license we direct.

Can we state the intent, not the particular license terms, please.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:13:48 +0200

I believe the intent should be to make sure everyone can use portions
(I think David only talks about code below) of RFCs for whatever
purpose they want.  This is basically what the MIT/Expat license says.
I agree we should agree on principles before discussing particular
licenses.

If I understand Jorge correctly, in his response quoted by Elwyn
recently, RFC 3978 already give everyone this permission too, for
code, but due to its unclear wording, at least I have not been reading
it that way.

I argue we shouldn't try to make a difference between code and text,
but have the same rules for both.

/Simon

"Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> writes:

> My only concern here is that this is very close to directing the legal
> words rather than directing the intent.

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:33:41 -0700

> purpose they want.

I personally like that. I understand very well that some companies want
to protect their source code. But nobody forces an IETF participant to
stick actual code in an internet draft. Authors may choose to do so
because they find that their algorithm is easier described using
programming language rather than prose. It is merely a convenience. If
an author does that, they should have the clear expectation that the
"code" can be used in exactly the same way as the prose, or pseudo-code,
or Algol, or whatever.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:42:25 -0400

While I originally was looking for some restrictions on code usage, I 
have backed off from that.
I believe that the rough consnesus of the room and the email list is 
to support extraction, modification, and use of code extracts from RFCs.

The debate now returns to our perennial disagreement about text....

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern