My answer to Larry's question - Yes. Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -----Original Message----- > From: ipr-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxx > [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:14 PM > To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: FW: IETF copying conditions > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Ipr-wg mailing list > Ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf