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

From: Dave Hart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:21:09 +0000

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

---

From: "David L. Mills" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:56:43 +0000

Dave,

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. The NTP reference implementation is 
not licensed; it is copyrighted. The copyright statement has been 
reviewed and approved by the UDel intellectual property attorneys. This 
has nothing to do with any license that the MIB might be encumbered with.

Dave

---

From: Dave Hart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:44:57 +0000

Dr. Mills,

I respectfully disagree.  The NTP copyright statement distributed as
html/copyright.html and COPYING is also a license, granting permission
to use and copy under specific terms.  Granted, it does not call
itself a license agreement.  But I really don't want to get into a
semantic argument over this.

This issue I see is that the NTPv4 MIB is distributed in
ntpsnmpd/ntp4v-mib.mib, and I'd like to update it to the most recent
version (with the permanent "IANA" assigned SNMP OID).  And I am
concerned that would require those distributing the source, or the
ntpsnmpd binary, to comply with the IETF Trust's license covering the
MIB (as noted in RFC 5907, referring to "Code Components", defined
basically as elements which are formatted machine-readable).

Here's the text of the IETF Trust's Simplified BSD License which
applies to those extracting and using the MIB from RFC 5907, lacking
another license from the authors:

<quote>
Copyright (c) <insert year> IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

·    Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

·    Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

·    Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
“AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
</quote>

I believe we can, with the permission of the MIB authors, bypass the
requirement to reproduce that license in documentation accompanying
NTP binaries.  The source is not an issue, the MIB itself points to
the license on the web.

Cheers,
Dave Hart

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:56 AM, David L. Mills <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Maybe there is a misunderstanding. The NTP reference implementation is not
> licensed; it is copyrighted. The copyright statement has been reviewed and
> approved by the UDel intellectual property attorneys. This has nothing to do
> with any license that the MIB might be encumbered with.
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Hart wrote:
>

---

From: "M. Warner Losh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:44:25 -0600 (MDT)

In message: <[email-masked]>
            "David L. Mills" <[email-masked]> writes:
: Maybe there is a misunderstanding. The NTP reference implementation is
: not licensed; it is copyrighted. The copyright statement has been
: reviewed and approved by the UDel intellectual property
: attorneys. This has nothing to do with any license that the MIB might
: be encumbered with.

Hi Dave M,

I think there's a small problem with terminology.  If you look at the
COPYRIGHT file, we find:

***********************************************************************
*                                                                     *
vvvvvvvv this is the copyright statement vvvvv

* Copyright (c) David L. Mills 1992-2009                              *

^^^^^^ this is the copyright statement ^^^^^^

vvvvvvvvvvvvvv  This is the license vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and   *
* its documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby     *
* granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all    *
* copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission       *
* notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name        *
* University of Delaware not be used in advertising or publicity      *
* pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,        *
* written prior permission. The University of Delaware makes no       *
* representations about the suitability this software for any         *
* purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied          *
* warranty.                                                           *

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the license ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*                                                                     *
***********************************************************************

I don't know if that applies to the reference code for the MIB
implementation, but that's what Dave Hart is talking about in his
message.

Warner

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:34:44 -0400

>From my reading of the TLP, I don't think we need to do anything else.
The MIB DESCRIPTION clause contains the following:

         Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
         authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

         Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
         without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
         to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
         set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
         Relating to IETF Documents
         (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

If you read Section 4.e of the TLP states that for Code Components
extracted from an IETF document, they either have to reproduce the
entire Simplified BSD license *or* include the text contained in Section
6.d.  And Section 6.d contains the text included in the above
DESCRIPTION clause.

So if the correct copyright and licensing is included in the MIB, why
would we need to do anything else?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:55:19 -0400

Dave,

On 9/30/10 11:23 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:34 UTC, Brian Haberman
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> "TLP" == IETF Trust Legal Provisions, for those that don't recognize
> it, at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/

Yes. Apologies for not expanding my acronyms.

> 
> Would a binary distribution which includes ntpsnmpd also include
> ntpv4-mib.mib?  In that case, perhaps there is no problem.  This is

I have never seen an snmp daemon store MIB definitions in binary form.
Generally, the network administrator dumps the MIBs of interest into a
sub-directory that is then read by the snmp agent prior to use.

> the paragraph of the IETF BSD license that concerns me:
> 
> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
> 
> And that following disclaimer is about 10 lines of ALL CAPS, THANK YOU
> LAWYERS.  If we interpret that the MIB is never redistributed in
> binary form, only in original text form, than we can assume that
> doesn't apply and we're not complicating licensing for binary
> distributions including ntpsnmpd.

That is my take on this.  And that is the take of a few other SNMP gurus
that I asked about this yesterday.  I believe Karen is querying the IETF
Trustees to see if that was their interpretation as well.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:09:44 -0700

> Trustees to see if that was their interpretation as well.

The real issue is how the IETF intends to fund the costs of direct and
indirect litigation over these really brain-dead licensing models
designed by techies... Sorry but most technical brains have decided they
are above law and process and well - its their way or no other... and
well the answer is that its not their way no matter how much they get
the ISOC to stand up behind them since ISOC will be driven into
bankruptcy at the first global IP war in a court room that have to play
in *(IMHO)...

Todd

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3168 - Release Date: 09/29/10 23:34:00
> 

-- 
//-----------------------------------------------------------------

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.

Thank you for your cooperation.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:11:57 -0700

On 9/29/2010 7:44 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
> to use and copy under specific terms.  

True

> Granted, it does not call

Agreed - but the MIBS need to be able to have the OIDS they rely on
changed at any time as well. So that needs to be designed into the USE
MODEL the IETF has all but banned through the actions of their WG
members from being mandatory for the use of their IP.

> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3167 - Release Date: 09/29/10 12:50:00
>