Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre > <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Russ Housley wrote: >>> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a >>> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF >>> Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last >>> call. The Last Call announcements are attached. Please review and >>> comment. >> >> I've given these drafts a first reading. The following comments may >> represent a misunderstanding on my part, but I provide them in the >> interest of clarifying the meaning of these drafts. >> >> One concern I have is the distinction between text and code. Where and >> how is that line drawn? What about, for example, protocol examples (of >> which there are many in most RFCs)? Are they text or code? > > the -outgoing draft contains this text: > > IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly > processed by a computer. Examples of these include ABNF definitions, > XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values, > MIBs, ASN.1, or classical programming code. > > And, recognizing that it's impossible to come up with a closed list of such > items that is valid for all time: > > While it is up to the Trustees of the IETF Trust to determine the > best way of meeting this objective, two mechanisms are suggested here > that are believed to be helpful in documenting the intended grant to > readers and users of IETF contributions. > > Firstly, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should maintain, in a > suitable, easily accessible fashion, a list of common RFC components > which will be considered to be code. To start, this list should > include at least the items listed above. The Trustees of the IETF > Trust will add to this list as they deems suitable or as it is > directed by the IETF. > > Additionally, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should define a textual > representation to be included in an IETF contribution to indicate > that a portion of the document is considered by the authors (and > later the working group, and upon approval the IETF) to be code, and > to be subject to the permissions granted to use code. > > I don't think protocol examples are code - they're not written in a > parseable language. OTOH, if someone were to write protocol examples > using an ASCII representation of ITU-T's TTCN, that would probably be > code, and the IETF Trust should update their list to include that format. > >> Another concern is the limitation on copying of text. It seems quite >> reasonable for developers to include snippets of text in their programs >> (think literate programming), and under many code licenses it is >> difficult if not impossible to separately license the code and any >> copied text when bundled together. >> >> Regarding the copying of text, Section 4.4 of the outgoing draft says: >> >> There is no consensus at this time to permit the use of text from >> RFCs in contexts where the right to modify the text is required. The >> authors of IETF contributions may be able and willing to grant such >> rights independently of the rights they have granted to the IETF by >> making the contribution. >> >> But Section 6 of the incoming draft says: >> >> It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are >> not permitted in IETF Documents except in the case where such >> document is the product of a joint development effort between the >> IETF and another standards development organization or the document >> is a republication of the work of another standards development >> organization. Such exceptions must be approved on an individual >> basis by the IAB. >> >> So it's not clear to me how contributors could (easily) grant the right >> to modify text that is copied from an RFC -- unless they do so outside >> the Internet Standards Process (based, I suppose, on the rights retained >> by the contributors). However, it seems that each implementor would need >> to separately approach the contributors in order to do that (and how >> would they know that the contributors are approachable in that way if >> not through inclusion of some kind of notice in the relevant RFC -- and >> would such a notice comprise an "additional copyright notice" as >> described in Section 6 fo the incoming draft?). > > Exactly; this is no change from the current copying conditions for RFCs. > In fact, the code copying conditions are more permissive than the status > quo ante. > > A note claiming that "this text is also available from source X, check > copying conditions there" would not be a copyright notice. > I don't think "this text is also available under GFDL from source X" is > a copyright notice either; it's a license, not a copyright notice. OK, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure. >> Finally, the outbound draft merely provides recommendations regarding >> license text and other materials, final definition of which seems to be >> under the sole purview of the Trustees of the IETF Trust. However, the >> outbound draft does not specify if the work of the Trustees shall be >> subject to review by the IPR WG, the IESG, the IAB, or the IETF >> community (e.g., in the form of an Internet-Draft) before it takes >> effect. > > No, it does not. I'd like someone from the Trust to speak up about their > thoughts about suitable review processes. Yes, that would be appreciated. > Note that the IPR WG can't do the review going forward; once these > documents are approved (if they are), I intend to ask that the group is > shut down. That seems sensible. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf