I think this mostly works, though a couple of comments, in-line:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Hi folks,
it seems that we are drawing close to a consensus here:
- Access to data that the IETF has created and needs to function is a paramount basic principle. Not to be compromised. So it needs to go VERY plainly into section 2.2 "principles".
- Access to software is a very-nice-to-have, but it's only critical if not having it limits our ability to effectively access the data. And open-source is a quite-nice-to-have; we see a number of advantages in doing things that way, but there may be cases where other considerations apply. So this belongs in the document, but under "advice", not "principles".
So - I'd like to propose a specific text change to address that:
Replace the current section from 2.2 that says:
6. The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in any way by ISOC from the IETF.
with the following:
6. The IASA, on behalf of the IETF, shall have an irrevocable, permanent right of access and later use to all data created in support of the IETF's activities, including the right to disclose it to other parties of its choosing.
And in section 3.1 "IAD Responsibilities", add after paragraph 4 ("The IAD negotiates service contracts"):
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA and the IETF the rights in data that is needed to satisfy the principle of data access. This is needed to make sure the IETF has access to the data it needs at all times, and that the IASA can change contractors when needed without disrupting IETF work. If software is developed under an IASA contract, the software should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract; this may be accomplished by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD will decide how the interest of the IETF is best served when making such contracts.
This reads to me like the IAD can choose to have that software owned by the IETF or open sourced, but nothing else.
And I think that flies if, and only if, such things as providing sums of money to ensure that a service provider updates their own software to meet our specified needs (e.g., something mundane like a sort order on attendance records) is not ever considered "software developed under an IASA contract".
Is it still English, and does it still scratch the itch for others, if the 2nd to last sentence is broken up and changed (borrowing from Carl's suggestions):
Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract. This may be accomplished by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferrable. The IAD will decide how the interest of the IETF is best served when making such contracts.
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf