On Friday, March 13, 2015 04:08:01 PM John C Klensin wrote: > --On Friday, March 13, 2015 15:40 -0400 Sam Hartman > > <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > > John> Sam, > > > > John> This may go back to our earlier (apparent) > > > > disagreement on the John> subject. IANAL or nearly a good > > enough approximation to one John> to be competent to > > assess the details, but my presumption John> continues to > > be that the basic rules about RFCs, plus this John> > > language, allows the type of application you are concerned > > John> about as long as the version of the template in the > > John> application is an exact copy. > > > > You're absolutely right. However, the requirement that the > > application be an exact copy is in and of itself enough to > > make such software fail to comply with the Open Source > > Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the Free > > Software Foundation's definition of free software. > > So, on its face you cannot do that in a free software or > > open-source application. > > > > My strong belief is that in this instance the IETF's interests > > are better served by cooperating with the > > open-source/free-software community than by preventing > > modification of the templates. > > As I have been trying to explain in a different context to Scott > Kitterman, I suspect we agree in everything but language and > tone. Certainly it is not in the IETF's best interest to > prevent reasonable software that enables template-filling-in > software from being written. I personally contend that it is > also not in the IETF's best interest to encourage, or even > allow, modifications to templates that would permit > misrepresentation of the results or, more importantly, would > facilitate the creation of filled-in templates that IANA, for > example, would reject because they were inconsistent with the > templates specified for a given registry. > > I don't see those two objectives as being inconsistent in any > way. It is certainly possible to formulate heavy-handed ways to > express one or the other that would be a problem but, if the > community is in agreement with both principles (and I haven't > heard anyone speak up in opposition to either as long as they > don't have bad effects on the other), then the question is > whether the Trust's language is consistent with the community's > intent. > > You and Scott (and probably others) apparently believe we have > gotten into exactly the situation in which the community's > intent about the first principle is being blocked by the Trust's > langauge. I don't think I have a competent opinion on the > subject although it occurs to me that, if we are getting hung up > on what "exact copy" means, some long-term review of the > licenses you cite may be in order too. > > But I hope the three of us could join in asking the Trust and > its Counsel to work directly with the relevant people associated > with the licenses you cite to come up with mutually-acceptable > language. > > IMO, if we can't sort this out without a lot more pain and > aggravation, we _really_ need to consider going back to some > reasonable approximation to "acknowledge, be clear about > changes, but otherwise do what you like with RFCs". That may > not be the only reasonable answer, but, IMO, the cost of these > discussions is rising above the benefits of more restrictive and > precise policies. I think your desire to prevent misrepresentation is quite reasonable. I'd be glad to help out with coming up with something that meets both that goal and is free software friendly. Scott K