RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Joel Halpern wrote:
> The working group could have included what
> Simon asked for in 5377.  The rough consensus of the WG was not to do
> so.

That is accurate. It is also a damned shame, and many of us still don't
agree. 

/Larry Rosen 

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:29 AM
> To: Simon Josefsson
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
> reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
> 
> Let's be quite clear here.
> Your stated requirement for doing this was that authors had to be able
> to take and modify any text from anywhere in an RFC.
> The Working Group concluded that while that was reasonable relative to
> code (and we tried to give the open source community that ability
> relative to code), that such a wide grant was not reasonable relative to
> the text content of RFC.  (Among other concerns, such changes would
> include modification of normative text and text carefully worked out by
> working groups to get the meanings right.  If the WG got it wrong, the
> IETF is the place to fix it, not comments in code somewhere.)
> 
> Also, it should be understood that this issue is largely orthogonal to
> the topic under discussion.  The working group could have included what
> Simon asked for in 5377.  The rough consensus of the WG was not to do
> so.  A more narrow 5378 would make it harder to make such a grant, but
> since the working group didn't choose to do so (and personally, I think
> doing so would undermine much of our work) the issues seems to have no
> bearing on "whould we rescind 5378?" or "is there a better transition
> strategy to get 5378 to apply to the bulk of our work?" or "how do we
> get 5378 rights in code, without holding up all the other documents?"
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > One of the remaining problems is, as described above, that the IETF
> > license does not permit authors to take BSD licensed code and use them
> > as illustration in RFCs because RFC 5378 does not permit additional
> > copyright notices to be present in RFCs.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]