Glenn, It helps and thanks. As I tried to say in my note, rationalizing things and making them consistent is clearly reasonable and appropriate. But the key issue I raised, which your explanation does not address, is the invocation of the Note Well rather than either the underlying documents or a specific Trust policy on the subject. thanks, john --On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 20:55 +0000 "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <Glenn.Deen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, > > It's less about change any policy or about removing CC by > 4.0 and is about making sure we're following the rules the > IETF has selected for its content, and being consistent when > doing so. > > Currently, the Wiki is not consistent since it is calling out > both CC by 4.0 and Note Well as applying. > > The Wiki is showing both on the footer of pages as boiler > plate: > > Content is available under the Creative Commons > Attribution License, by IETF Trust (CC BY 4.0). All content is > covered by the IETF Note Well. | Powered by > Wiki.js<https://wiki.js.org> > > And in the basic info on the wiki: > > Welcome to the IETF Community Wiki > This is a community wiki for IETF participants to use. It > replaces the previous structure of trac wikis where each > working group/team had its own trac instance. The IETF Note > Well<https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/> applies to all > content on this wiki, and it is referenced on every page. > > > CC by 4.0 is being blanket applied to all pages, and also > citing Note Well which in turn pulls in BCP 78 and BCP 79 > which in turn pull in RFC 5378 and its rules for IETF > Contributions etc. > > It may be that the key issue is that the Wiki should not > blanket apply CC by 4.0 to all content and that individual > pages need different rules. > > What license applies to what content? > ----- > If you look at the IETF Trust's cheat sheet on licenses > (https://trustee.ietf.org/assets/the-ietf-trusts-copyrights-an > d-licenses/). You'll see that CC by 4.0 is correct for > use on general information, but not for IETF Contributions. > > Content created to help with meetings, room booking, > instructions to Chairs etc, is all fine with CC by 4.0. > > However, working group content – aka stuff that's IETF > Contributions to the standards making process and should not > by CC by 4.0 – is also in the wiki. See : > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/mops/rfc9317-additional-resourc > es > > You may note in this second page citation, that the IETF Trust > boilerplate on copyright also appears in the text. That's > correct btw for the type of content, but it's in conflict > with the CC by 4.0 on the page bottom. > > Does additional background help? > > So not so much as policy change, but more of a making sure the > IETF is following the rules is has established for its > different kinds of content. > > Regards > Glenn > > > On 2/15/23, 10:48 AM, "Trustees" <trustees-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Jay and Trustees, > > (I've taken the liberty of copying the IETF list because this > type of licensing change appears to affect the entire > community, not just those who are participating in or > following tools development.) > > I think the principle of moving from CC to IETF-specific rules > is just fine. However, I question whether doing so by > referencing/ incorporating the Note Well is a good way to > accomplish that. The problem as I see it is that the Note Well > is a somewhat informal narrative document that points to other > things. Those other things get careful review and are clearly > community consensus documents. The Note Well is more > explanatory, has been revised with less formal determination of > community consensus, and has evolved to contain considerable > material that has nothing to do with IPR. The current version > now even begins "This is a reminder of IETF policies...". > Telling someone who is, e.g., about to join a mailing list or > participate in a meeting to go read the Note Well and > understand and accept what it includes (directly and by > reference) is, IMO, fine. But we have changed it many times > to make it more clear (also a good thing) without detailed > community review and approval. Nothing wrong with that > either, as long as it is narrative/ explanatory. But, where > things move from an explanation to participants and a > collection of pointers to an actual license, I think that > license should be referencing primary materials, or at least > an easily located Trust document that does so, not less formal > narrative/ explanatory text, especially when the latter > contains irrelevant material. > > best, > john > > > --On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 15:52 +0000 Jay Daley > <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This is a heads up that the IETF Trust have asked us to change >> the licensing on the IETF wiki (and by implication our other >> user-editable wikis) from CC BY 4.0 to "All content is covered >> by the IETF Note Well" as they are concerned that our wikis >> contain contributions to the standards process and these are >> not normally licensed under CC By 4.0. We will be making this >> change on Friday. >> >> We are also talking to the Trust about how to ensure that >> contributions to the wiki are managed in accordance with RFC >> 5378. This may require some significant changes in the >> contribution and content management model for the wikis. I am >> hopeful that the Trust will raise this directly with the >> community in due course. > > > _______________________________________________ > Trustees mailing list > Trustees@xxxxxxxx > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi > nfo/trustees__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!u-6DtJEpNYWkhWDfMzOCLVE8qp5SUe > a5-YAWVbPZx1rojHLqWYe2biF63CJOppibXTXoIrZJdsFINrKA0g$<https:// > urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trust > ees__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!u-6DtJEpNYWkhWDfMzOCLVE8qp5SUea5-YAWVbP > Zx1rojHLqWYe2biF63CJOppibXTXoIrZJdsFINrKA0g$>
