Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> Disclaimer: IANAL, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding >> something about the license you referenced, but... >> >> It seems to me that the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0", while >> fine for the source code to IETF tools, places more restrictions and >> more burden on someone who uses the code than we would want to place >> on someone who uses a MIB, XML schema or other "code" from our RFCs. >> >> For example, the license places an obligation on someone using the >> source code to distribute copies of the original source code with any >> products they distribute. Effectively, this means that anyone who >> distributes products based on MIBs, XML schemas or other "code" from >> RFCs would need to put up a partial RFC repository. Why would we >> want that? > > As the author of the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 (NOSL 3.0), > perhaps I can clear up some misconceptions about it. > > * NOSL 3.0 is for software tools; it is not a standards license. It is not > used as the outbound license for any code in RFCs, I understood Ray Pelletier to be suggesting that as a possibility, since he said: "Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these documents would require a different treatment?" Which I took to mean that NOSL 3.0 might be applied to the code snippets contained in RFCs. > and thus there is no > obligation that I'm aware of to put up a "partial RFC repository" anywhere. Not yet. :) > * NOSL 3.0 does not obligate someone merely "using" the source code or the > software to distribute anything at all. However, the same does not apply to Derivative Works. > * Source code must be made available by anyone who actually distributes the > software or derivative works thereof to third parties. (The definition in > NOSL 3.0 of "distribution" is important but not relevant to this thread.) > > * Source code need not be distributed "with" products containing that > software. Typically, distribution of source code is handled through separate > links on websites, just as most open source software companies now > distribute software and source code. > > * Products that incorporate unmodified copies of NOSL 3.0 software tools > rather than derivative works thereof can just inform customers to link to > the IETF website itself for source code. That also serves as a way for IETF > and its contributors to receive credit for writing that free and open source > software in the first place. > > * The reciprocity obligation for derivative works and patents in NOSL 3.0 is > on purpose. Everyone is free to use those software tools for any purpose > whatsoever, but improvements to them *that are distributed to third parties* > must be returned to IETF for the potential benefit of other members of the > IETF community. That all makes perfect sense for the code produced by the Tools Team. > * As you may have seen in recent discussions about the proposed IETF IPR > policies, one goal is to allow anyone to create and distribute products that > embody IETF standards under any license whatsoever. Whatever the outbound > license turns out to be for RFCs, it will presumably not dictate or limit > the license terms for products embodying those RFCs. For that reason alone, > NOSL 3.0 is not appropriate for RFC outbound licensing. Agreed. > Further information about NOSL 3.0 and related licenses, is at > www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.pdf. Reading. > For various reasons, AFL 3.0, also described in that paper, would perhaps be > a more appropriate outbound license for code in RFCs, but that too is a > topic for a potential separate thread. Thanks for the clarifications. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf