Subject: [ntpwg] Fwd: Re: Please license the NTPv4 MIB under the NTP Copyright

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:43:11 -0400

My original response to this was sent from the wrong email address...

Dave,

I will take an action to investigate your comments and get a recommendation from the IETF Trust. I don't fully understand all the issues represented here. Thank you for bringing this issue to light.

Regards,
Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hart<[email-masked]>
Sender: ntpwg-bounces+kodonog=[email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:21:09
To:<[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Cc: Chris Elliot<[email-masked]>
Subject: [ntpwg] Please license the NTPv4 MIB under the NTP Copyright

This message is addressed to all three contributors listed in RFC
5907, the NTPv4 MIB RFC, and to the ntpwg@ mailing list to preserve a
record for posterity.

I've been swimming around in IETF trust legal documents trying to wrap
my head around the licensing issues associated with updating the
distribution source file ntpsnmpd/ntpv4-mib.mib to the final MIB
published in RFC 5907, triggered by this standard notice in the RFC
and the understanding that the NTPv4 MIB is a Code Component:

    Code Components extracted from this document must
    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
    described in the Simplified BSD License.

I think that's the obvious approach and it would work, but it has a
downside in my view, namely, it complicates licensing of the NTP
Reference Implementation by adding yet another license to our
collection, so that those distributing the reference implementation
are bound to, for example, reproduce the IETF Trust Simplified BSD
License in accompanying documentation.

After reading for quite a while, though, I think I see a way of
avoiding complication of the NTP Reference Implementation's licensing.
  IETF trust own the copyright to RFC 5907 and controls publication _in
RFC form_, but BCP 78 makes it clear the original contributors retain
their copyright to their contributions in the original form, that is,
not presented as an RFC.  You are not restricted from licensing your
contribution separately, outside RFC form, so long as your licensing
does not interfere with the rights granted to the IETF Trust, as
explained in BCP 78.

So, I am asking each of you to license your work, the NTPv4 MIB, under
the NTP Copyright statement,
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/copyright.html, and also
asking each of you for permission to include your name and email
address in the list of contributors contained in the NTP Copyright
statement.  I suggest entries along the following lines:

Chris Elliot<[email-masked]>  NTPv4 MIB
Heiko Gerstung<[email-masked]>  ntpsnmpd, NTPv4 MIB
Brian Haberman<[email-masked]>  NTPv4 MIB

If you would prefer another email address, or have other changes you
would like to those suggested lines, please speak up.

I notice that in the MIB header comment, Brian is not listed as an
author, but his contact information does appear a few lines later in
the MODULE-IDENTITY CONTACT-INFO.  I suppose this may mean we only
need ask Chris and Heiko to license the MIB under the NTP Copyright to
have the right to reproduce it outside the terms of the IETF Trust's
Simplified BSD License, but personally I would feel better if all
three agree to contribute the MIB to the reference implementation
under the NTP Copyright.

Remind me never to pursue a second career in law.  My head hurts.

Thanks to everyone for your time and attention to this matter,
Dave Hart
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg