Harald Alvestrand wrote; > - The discussion of permitting change to text was extensive and repeated. > - The consensus of the working group was the compromise position now > documented. > > I assert that if you want to claim that either of these two statements > are false, YOU back it up with evidence. As it stands, you are making > statements that I personally, as the WG chair who's tried to shepherd > this process for the last 3 years, find to be crossing the border > between uninformed speculation and assertions that I would have to take > personal affront at. Harald, I certainly meant no insult to your efforts to shepherd an IPR group with a *flawed charter* [1] to a conclusion with which I disagree. You and I discussed this many times in-channel and back-channel, and you remember my frustrations and my sympathy for your position then and now. Indeed, we just wasted another thread arguing about the nonsensical distinction between code and text and again heard some people assert it is somehow relevant to the goal of pushing the IETF brand and seeking consistency on standards. The proposed IETF IPR policy allows the public to modify the code present in IETF specifications but not to use that same specification to create modified text to document that modified code! Does anyone here honestly believe this is justified? You admit: The working group took no vote. Nobody ever does in IETF. It is thus possible for a small group of people who have the stomach to attend to boring IPR discussions to come to an irrational conclusion. Since there was never a vote, I retain the right to repeat my concerns. You'll notice I've not tried to dominate this thread, but I was invited to comment once again--and I did. -1. /Larry [1] Failure to address patents; failure to identify the goals for IETF of a revised copyright policy; failure to weigh benefits and costs to the public of various alternatives. P.S. I moved this back to ietf@xxxxxxxxx Even though some people there find these battles over legal issues boring and distracting, this policy is the guts of why we're here. It should be the entire organization that debates the charter and results of a policy working group, not the working group itself. > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:22 PM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: FW: IETF copying conditions > > Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > Ted Hardie wrote: > > > >> Just to forestall Jorge spending some of his valuable time on this, > >> I note that I'm not confused about this point--I was talking about > cases > >> where SDOs wished to re-publish (modified) IETF text within their own > >> specs. > >> This does not mean that they that they write it down and say > >> "here is the text from RFC NNNN"; it means that they want to take > >> the text, change it, and re-publish it. > >> > >> Allowing someone to say no to that is something the working group has > >> said it wants to retain. > >> > > > > I don't believe you can point to a vote anywhere in the IPR WG on that > exact > > point. Instead, you and others on the committee moved the discussion > into > > the misleading topic of code vs. text, and pretended that there was some > > difference important to you. > Larry, that is your claim. > I don't dispute the claim that we haven't taken a vote, because the IETF > does not vote. > But I will assert two things: > > - The discussion of permitting change to text was extensive and repeated. > - The consensus of the working group was the compromise position now > documented. > > I assert that if you want to claim that either of these two statements > are false, YOU back it up with evidence. As it stands, you are making > statements that I personally, as the WG chair who's tried to shepherd > this process for the last 3 years, find to be crossing the border > between uninformed speculation and assertions that I would have to take > personal affront at. > > Some breadcrumbs from the archives - both the meeting minutes, the > ticket server and the email archives are online, and you should be able > to find them easily to verify: > > The issue tracker shows #1169: "Modified excerpts", with the first text > "Should modified versions of excerpts from non-code text be permitted?". > > https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1169 > > The resolution, as of November 13, 2007 (I was lame in my tracker > updates), says "Resolved as of Chicago (not)". > > The July 2007 minutes of the physical meeting in Chicago show: > > Consensus in room that the other issues have been resolved: #1166, > 1167, 1168, 1169, 1175, 1199, 1237, 1246, 1337, 1400 > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/ipr.txt > > My archive search shows that this occurs in multiple messages to the list: > June 27, 2006, "Ticket status, June 27, 2006": > > > #1169 Modified excerpts > Consensus that modifications to make use of code in implementations > are OK. > No consensus on modifications to non-code. > Not clear if consensus exists on reuse of code for other purposes > than standards implementation > > March 27, 2007, "DRAFT minutes from Prague IPR meeting": > > III - matching issues to resolutions > Harald reviewed issues from issues list and the resolutions > ....... > 1169 Modified excerpts > Resolution: Permitted for code, not permitted for non-code _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf